Judgment Women are again subject to dispute over PIP breast implants

OLG Karlsruhe rejects lawsuit against surgeon and insurance
Karlsruhe (jur). In the dispute over the cheap industrial silicone filled breast implants of the French manufacturer Poly Implant Prothèse (PIP) women have now suffered a defeat at the Karlsruhe Higher Regional Court. According to the judgment of the previous day, published on Thursday, April 21, 2016, neither the doctors nor the insurer of PIP have to be liable (Az .: 7 U 241/14).

PIP sold its implants ten thousand times worldwide. The manufacturing process had been certified by TÜV Rheinland so that the products could bear the European "CE" seal.

According to an estimate by the Federal Institute for Drugs and Medical Devices (BfArM), around 6,000 women in Germany have PIP implants. After reports of ruptured and leaking silicone pads piled up, the French authorities stopped selling in April 2010.

According to BfArM, a total of 46 percent of all implants used in Germany have proved to be defective by the end of 2013. Since it is not possible to predict whether and when there will be problems with the implants, since late 2012 the authorities have recommended that affected women remove PIP implants.

In order to pay the costs, numerous women have filed various claims for damages. On 25 November 2014, the Karlsruhe Regional Court denied the liability of all eligible counterparties with a nationwide ruling. (Ref .: 2 O 25/12, JurAgentur notification of the following day).

This has now confirmed the OLG regarding the cosmetic surgeon and the PIP liability insurer. The OLG had previously dismissed the lawsuit against TÜV Rheinland; the result is still pending.

The attending cosmetic surgeon has informed the applicant that silicone implants have a limited shelf life, usually ten to 15 years. At that time, the special problems with the PIP implants were not yet known, which is why the doctor was not to be reproached in this regard, were the judges of Karlsruhe.

The claim against the liability insurer had to treat the district court under French law. The limitations of liability provided there are also not objectionable under EU law. The district court rightly dismissed the claim here too, according to the OLG. (Mwo / fle)