$502 Million Verdict Against J&J in Second DePuy Pinnacle Hip Bellwether Trial

DePuy Orthopaedics, a Johnson & Johnson subsidiary, sold the Pinnacle metal-on-metal hip replacement system as a durable solution for patients needing total hip arthroplasty. The device paired a cobalt-chromium ball with a metal cup, and for thousands of patients the friction between those components released metallic debris into surrounding tissue and bloodstream, causing a condition called metallosis: tissue death, bone erosion, and elevated metal ion levels that sometimes required painful revision surgeries.

Five Texas residents were consolidated for the second federal bellwether trial in the multidistrict litigation, MDL 2244, which by early 2016 already held more than 7,000 related cases. The first bellwether trial had ended in 2014 with a defense verdict for J&J and DePuy. This trial opened January 8, 2016, in Dallas federal court. W. Mark Lanier served as lead trial counsel for the plaintiffs.

Over 37 days of testimony, Lanier's team argued that DePuy knew the metal-on-metal design carried higher revision rates and ion-release risks than alternative bearing surfaces, and that the company failed to adequately warn surgeons and patients before the implant was widely implanted. The jury agreed on both counts, finding the Pinnacle hip defectively designed and the defendants liable for failure to warn.

On March 17, 2016, the jury returned a verdict of approximately $502 million: roughly $130 to $142 million in compensatory damages and $360 million in punitive damages against DePuy and J&J. The trial judge later applied Texas's statutory cap on exemplary damages, bringing the punitive portion down so that the total judgment stood near $151 million.

J&J appealed. In April 2018, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit vacated the judgment entirely and ordered a new trial, citing two categories of error: the admission of prejudicial evidence at trial unrelated to the device (including references to a bribery matter involving Iraqi government officials), and a finding that plaintiffs' counsel had misrepresented the compensation status of two expert witnesses. The Fifth Circuit held that Lanier had told the jury the experts had no financial stake in the outcome while having arranged a pre-trial charitable donation and post-trial payments totaling tens of thousands of dollars to those witnesses. The court called the conduct 'deception, plain and simple' and ruled it furnished independent grounds for a new trial. The case was remanded to the district court.