This month the Supreme Court of Missouri issued a ruling on a procedural issue involving the Mizzou BioJoint lawsuit.
Has the Mizzou BioJoint Lawsuit Returned?
1 min read Premium comments
Secondary#biojoint#mizzou
Readers may be a bit confused because we recently covered a University of Missouri settlement resolving the BioJoint lawsuits for $16.2 million. For OTW’s complete coverage of the settlement, see “Mizzou BioJoint Lawsuits Settle for $16.2 Million.”
So, what is going on?
Mizzou BioJoint patients sued doctors and the University of Missouri for issues relating to their failed BioJoint surgeries. The circuit court then entered orders dismissing the University of Missouri from each case. It certified those judgments as final.
The plaintiffs appealed those judgments. The plaintiffs’ appeals were then dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. The court of appeals concluded that the circuit court’s orders were not final judgments because some of the case is still pending. Therefore, it reasoned that the issue of whether the University of Missouri should be a party to the case could not be decided until the entire case concluded.
The Supreme Court of Missouri then heard the matter and issued its opinion this month. In its opinion it stated that the orders in question do meet the definition of a judgment because they “dispose of all claims against one party.” The one party is the University of Missouri. Further, the orders were eligible to be final judgments because, with regard to the University of Missouri, “the circuit court rulings resolved all legal issues and left open no remedies.”
So now what? The Supreme Court of Missouri retransferred the case to the court of appeals for “consideration of the merits of the plaintiffs’ appeals.” This means the court must hear the plaintiffs’ original appeal.
OTW has been following the lawsuits against Mizzou’s BioJoint Center since they began in 2018. For OTW’s coverage of the lawsuits see “Mizzou BioJoint Lawsuits Continue to Grow,” “Number of Mizzou Living Cell Lawsuits is Growing,” and “Third Lawsuit Hits Mizzou Regenerative Medicine Center.”
React:
Discussion
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?
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.
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.