Edwin Coe, the UK’s first class action firm, investigating claims against lawyers representing victims of PIP breast implant scandal

Today, a court in Paris handed down a judgment in the now infamous PIP Breast Implants case in favour of women who had PIP breast implant surgery.

The PIP debacle erupted in 2010 when it emerged that implants fraudulently manufactured by PIP were made of cheap, industrial-grade silicone not cleared for human use, which was up to six times more likely to rupture than other implants and was found to have leached into the bodies of women who, as a result, suffered auto-immune disease, prolonged anxiety, and possibly cancer.

The late Jean-Claude Mas, founder of PIP was jailed for four years and fined 75,000 euros in 2013.

A French lawyer, Olivier Aumaitre, and “partner” lawyers¹ internationally, set up PIPA (PIP Implant World Victims Association) to represent claimants in claims against TUV, the German authority that certified PIP implants.

The judgment of the court in Paris today means that TUV’s negligence is held to be solely responsible for paying damages and Mr Aumaitre is reported as having said that “After 10 years of waiting and fierce combat, the German certifier will have to fully compensate the victims.”

Unfortunately, not all who commenced proceedings will enjoy the proceeds because some 6,200 victims have had their claims ruled to be “inadmissible” for lack of evidential proof being submitted.

Edwin Coe LLP, one of Britain’s leading class action firms, with 30 years’ experience in this type of litigation, is investigating the merits of possible claims against the lawyers.

PIPA suggests on its website that any claimants should not challenge PIPA or Mr Aumaitre!

Amanda Carter, who has played a central role in representing PIP victims, said, “After 7 years embroiled in a very stressful legal battle, we find it inexcusable that these women have had their claims disallowed and are now in the awful position of having to potentially repay the 3,000 euros interim payment they received. The responsibility for ensuring that adequate checks and evidence were provided is ultimately the lawyers’ responsibility. This is a never-ending saga that is causing unquantifiable stress.”

Edwin Coe intends to look into all aspects of the case and to investigate various possible causes of action including for negligence, conflict of interest, breach of data protection and a failure of client care.

David Greene, Senior Partner at Edwin Coe commented, “It is sad that whilst many women will be celebrating this victory there are thousands who were dismissed from the case for technical reasons and are not being compensated notwithstanding the pain and suffering caused by, literally, the poison that was put in them. This was a matter of French law and we are looking at the circumstances in which these thousands of cases were dismissed and whether appropriate action at the time might have led to those thousands also celebrating the win today.”

Technology partner GMT has opened the online pre-registration and registration of interest to participate in this case is now live here.

 

NOTES TO EDITORS
The website of PIPA sets out information pertinent to the case.

¹ Including a claims management company Stanton Fisher, Slee Blackwell Solicitors of Barnstaple, Your Lawyers of Chesterfield as well as Coleman Legal of Dublin.

Group action management technology for the case is provided by Group Management Technology.