Jury: titanium neck implant was not med-mal incident — Defense verdict

Injuries alleged: Permanent, debilitating pain in the cervical spine radiating into the upper extremities, rendering the plaintiff permanently disabled

Court: Arlington County Circuit Court

Case no.: CL-24-832

Tried before: Jury

Name of judge: Judge Daniel T. Lopez

Date resolved: May 2, 2025

Demand: $4 million

Attorneys for defendant: Byron Mitchell and Frances Miller, Fredericksburg, Mitchell & Simopoulos

Description of case: The plaintiff, age 41, presented to the defendant complaining of radiating neck pain which had not responded to several epidural steroid injections or physical therapy. Imaging confirmed degenerative changes at C5-6 and C6-7.

The defendant recommended cervical disc replacement. The plaintiff requested pre-operative metal allergy testing be done because his father had a metal allergy. Metal patch testing was done for 12 different metals. The plaintiff had a 1+ reaction to titanium on days one and two, but zero reaction on days three and four. The defendant did not believe the patch test results indicated that the plaintiff had a true allergy or sensitivity to titanium.

The patient underwent surgery wherein the defendant used an implant which was titanium-coated but was not metal-on-metal and thus did not create any wear debris.

Post-operatively, the plaintiff did well initially, but at seven months, developed symptoms which the plaintiff attributed to his titanium allergy.

The defendant, unsure of the cause of the plaintiff’s complaints because imaging showed the implants to be well positioned with robust bony in-growth, offered to remove the implants and do a fusion. The patient declined. The plaintiff sought second opinions from 10 spine surgeons from Washington, D.C. to New York City, but to date has not undergone revision surgery.

Nor did the plaintiff ever undergo repeat titanium allergy testing. The plaintiff resigned from his work as a child welfare advocate claiming he cannot sit, drive or travel as required by his job. He claimed he was not only permanently disabled from working but also could not do household chores or even lift his two young children.

The plaintiff sued the defendant for lack of informed consent and negligence. He asked the jury for $4 million in closing argument. The defense theme was that the titanium-coated implant was the best implant for the plaintiff (all cervical implants at that time contained titanium), that the defendant discussed as much with the patient, that plaintiff’s mild reaction represented an irritant reaction (not an allergy) and that the plaintiff’s ongoing pain is not due to his perceived allergy to titanium. The jury found the defendant after five hours of deliberation.

Defense counsel Byron J. Mitchell provided case information.

[025-T-065]