Lead Counsel independently verifies DePuy Hip Replacement attorneys in Philadelphia by conferring with Pennsylvania bar associations and conducting annual reviews to confirm that an attorney practices in their advertised practice areas and possesses a valid bar license for the appropriate jurisdictions.
The Depuy hip replacement device, designed to last 10 to 15 years, has experienced a high failure rate occurring within five years and the manufacturer voluntarily recalled the product. Many patients have undergone revision surgery because of the failure and have experienced pain, swelling, and difficulty walking.
If your DePuy hip replacement has failed prematurely, it is in your best interest to consult a Philadelphia lawyer who handles DePuy hip replacement cases. The lawyer can tell you if you are entitled to compensation, prepare your claim, and may achieve a settlement that is satisfactory to you instead of going to trial.
In legal practice, experience matters. An experienced attorney will likely have handled issues similar to yours many, many times. Therefore, after listening to your situation, the attorney should have a reasonable idea of the time line for a case like yours and the likely resolution.
An experienced lawyer should be able to communicate a basic “road map” on how to proceed. The lawyer should be able to walk you through the anticipated process, key considerations, and potential pitfalls to avoid. Once you’ve laid out the facts of your situation to the lawyer, he/she should be able to frame expectations and likely scenarios to help you understand your legal issue.
Experience. Regardless of the type of legal matter you need help with, an experienced attorney will usually be able to get you better results.
Competence. Determine an attorney’s expertise by asking about their track record for the issue you need help with resolving.
Fit. There are plenty of good attorneys out there; make sure you find one you are comfortable working with.
Personal jurisdiction – Requirement that a particular court have authority over a person, in order to bind that person to the judgment of the court, based on minimum contacts. International Shoe Co v. Washington is a landmark Supreme Court case outlining the scope of a state court’s reach in personal jurisdiction.