LinkedInXFacebook
Subscribe
Orthopedics This Week
  • My Feed
  • |Posts
  • |Events
  • |MSK Innovations
  • |Power Rankings
  • |Masterclasses
  • |Technology Awards
  • Press Releases
  • |Advertising
  • |Job Board
  • Spine
  • ◆Joints
  • ◆Upper Extremities
  • ◆Foot & Ankle
  • ◆Sports Medicine
  • ◆Pain Mgmt
  • ◆Trauma
  • ◆Biologics
  • ◆Technology
  • ◆People
  • ◆Company News
  • ◆Legal & Regulatory
Home/Legal & Regulatory and Reimbursement/Mizzou BioJoint Lawsuits Continue to Grow
Legal & Regulatory and Reimbursement

Mizzou BioJoint Lawsuits Continue to Grow

February 13, 2020 2 min read Premium comments

Advertisement

Mizzou BioJoint Lawsuits Continue to Grow
Mizzou Commons / Source: Wikimedia Commons
#kneereplacementSecondary#mizzou#medicalmalpractice

Plaintiffs’ attorneys have filed a motion to consolidate 11 medical malpractice lawsuits—involving 17 different plaintiffs—against the Mizzou BioJoint® Center. The number of claims may continue to rise if additional plaintiffs file suit.

The medical malpractice lawsuits began in March 2018 when former patient Daniel Draper filed a lawsuit claiming that he was told if he had the BioJoint procedure, he would not need an artificial total knee replacement. However, he had to have several surgeries. Draper alleges that the multiple procedures failed, his symptoms did not dissipate, and he had to have a total knee replacement.

The other plaintiffs have similar stories. Most plaintiffs claim they had to have multiple BioJoint surgeries, with little to no relief of symptoms. Just as in Draper’s case, many allege that because of the BioJoint surgery failures, they were required to have a full knee replacement.

The similarities of the plaintiffs’ claims are the reason the attorneys filed the motion to consolidate. A motion to consolidate is a motion which seeks to combine two or more cases into one proceeding. Typically, a motion to consolidate may be granted if the cases involve common questions of law or fact.

OTW reached out to Jesslyn Chew, Manager of Public Relations for MU Health, for a comment on the case. Chew said, “At MU Health Care’s Mizzou BioJoint® Center at the Missouri Orthopedic Institute, providing safe, quality care is our top priority. While we are unable to comment on this particular situation pending litigation, we remain confident in the Mizzou BioJoint program and are very proud of our outstanding team who provides treatment options to patients with knee, ankle, shoulder, and other joint problems.”

Chew continued, “As with all medical procedures, it is our practice to discuss and provide extensive information about the benefits and risks prior to all surgical and nonsurgical procedures performed at the Mizzou BioJoint® Center. More information about the procedure and our outcomes is available on our website, biojoint.com.”

The Mizzou BioJoint Center is part of the Missouri Orthopaedic Institute located in Columbia, Missouri. The surgeries performed at the Mizzou BioJoint Center include restorative cartilage, bone, meniscus, ligament and tendon procedures designed to improve joint health and function.

According to the Mizzou BioJoint website, “Biological joint restoration surgeries use natural tissues (cartilage, bone, meniscus, ligaments and tendons) from organ donors instead of the high-tech medical metals, plastics and ceramics used for total and partial artificial joint replacements. The use of natural tissues gives the joint a more normal feel and function.”

OTW has been following the lawsuits against the Mizzou’s BioJoint Center since they began in March 2018. For OTW’s coverage of the lawsuits see “Number of Mizzou Living Cell Lawsuits is Growing” and “Third Lawsuit Hits Mizzou Regenerative Medicine Center.”

React:

Discussion

14
DS
Dr. Sarah MitchellOrthopedic Surgeon · Mayo Clinic

This is a fascinating development. In my practice we've seen similar outcomes with the revised protocol. The key differentiator seems to be patient selection criteria. Has anyone else noticed the correlation with BMI thresholds?

8
JT
James Thornton, MDSpine Fellow · HSS

Great point. I'd push back slightly on the conclusion, the sample size in the cited study is too small to draw population-level inferences. That said, the directional signal is compelling and worth a larger RCT.

5
RP
R. PatelSports Medicine · Stanford

We implemented a similar approach last year. Early results are promising but we're still gathering 12-month follow-up data. Happy to share our protocol if anyone is interested.

Join the conversation

Orthopedic professionals are discussing this. Sign in and upgrade to read every comment and add your voice.

Subscribe

Get Full Access

Read every OTW article and join member discussions for $24.99/month.

Get Full Access

Advertisement

Advertisement

Advertisement

Orthopedics This Week

The most trusted source in orthopedic industry news since 2005. Covering spine, joints, trauma, biologics, and the business of orthopedics.

A publication of RRY Publications, LLC

LinkedInXFacebook

Categories

  • Spine
  • Joints
  • Upper Extremities
  • Foot & Ankle
  • Sports Medicine
  • Pain Mgmt
  • Trauma
  • Biologics
  • Technology
  • People
  • Company News
  • Legal & Regulatory

Resources

  • Subscribe
  • Community Posts
  • Job Board
  • Press Release Opportunities
  • Power Rankings
  • About OTW
  • Advertise
  • Contact Us

Get Full Access

Unlimited articles, community posts, and Power Rankings.

Get Full Access

Plans start at $24.99/mo · Annual saves 20%

© 2026 Orthopedics This Week · RRY Publications, LLC

Privacy PolicyTerms of ServiceCookie Policy