The settlement features a claims-made structure that does not cap the total compensation
The Ontario Superior Court of Justice has approved a substantial settlement for the plaintiffs in a class action against Biomet over metal-on-metal (MoM) hip implants.
The court endorsed the settlement as fair and reasonable, providing broad compensation to affected individuals across Canada. The ruling granted nearly all of the plaintiff's motions except a $7,500 honorarium sought by the representative plaintiff, Steve Dalton Dine, for his role in the litigation.
The case, initiated by Dine in 2013, focused on Biomet’s M2a 38, M2a Magnum, and ReCap Femoral Resurfacing System hip implants, which allegedly caused severe pain and metal-related health issues for some recipients. The settlement agreement included a range of compensatory measures for individuals who required revision surgeries and others who experienced complications without revision.
Under the approved agreement, eligible class members who underwent revision surgery will receive up to $75,000, with bilateral revisions qualifying for up to $90,000. Additional compensation of up to $40,000 is available for post-revision complications, and special provisions exist for class members who experienced health impacts but have not yet had revision surgeries.
A key feature of the settlement is the claims-made structure, which does not cap the total compensation. This approach, noted by the court, avoids the risk of prorated reductions in payout if more claimants come forward than anticipated, thus offering clarity and certainty on compensation to claimants. The court also highlighted that the agreement extends eligibility to individuals whose devices were implanted for up to 16 years, exceeding the 10-year eligibility cut-off common in similar settlements.
The agreement includes a $750,000 discretionary fund managed under a special claims protocol for individuals with unique claims, such as those with elevated metal levels but no revision surgery.
The Superior Court also approved class counsel’s legal fees, affirming the defendants’ contribution of $1.25 million towards fees and expenses and authorizing a 25 percent contingency fee on claimant awards. The court noted that the fee structure, which includes a cap on additional fees for those who retain counsel for individual claims, aligns with industry norms and provides financial relief for claimants.
However, the court declined to award the $7,500 honorarium requested for Dine, the representative plaintiff. The court reasoned that honoraria should be reserved for cases where plaintiffs face extraordinary personal hardship or risks, which was not deemed applicable in Dine’s case. The court found that while Dine disclosed personal health details, such disclosure is standard in health-related class actions and did not meet the threshold for exceptional circumstances.
