While the innovative design of the Stryker hip implant system was meant to offer surgeons much more flexibility during implantation, giving the patient a better fit due to the variety of necks and stems, that design has created many of the adverse conditions which led to the recall of the Rejuvenate and ABGII in July, 2012. These recalled hip implants which were advertised as lasting ten to fifteen years, have instead been subject to one revision after another after patients developed metal toxicity, pseudo-tumors and implant failure from inflammation and tissue, muscle and bone deterioration. Following the recall, Rejuvenate lawsuits have increased and are likely to continue to increase as more implant recipients discover they have suffered harm from the metal-on-metal implant.
As the litigation progresses, there are two primary litigation centers. One is the already-established New Jersey consolidated litigation which will be called a multi-county or multi-district litigation. Because New Jersey is considered the epicenter of pharmaceutical and medical device manufacturers, many mass tort litigations end up in New Jersey. Because of this New Jersey has split their state into three divisions; when application is made for MCL or mass tort treatment the New Jersey Supreme Court decides with portion of New Jersey will get the case. As of this writing, 133 cases have been filed against Stryker in the New Jersey mass tort litigation. A second MCL will be determined by the end of June or the first of July. Multiple case management conferences have been held regarding the New Jersey MCL since January, 2013, and another has been requested in a month.
Stryker has made what many believe to be a “red herring” distinction that the MCL created should only concern the Rejuvenate rather than both the Rejuvenate and the ABGII in an attempt to force the plaintiffs to spend more money on experts. In reality there is little distinction between the Rejuvenate and the ABGII. Stryker has also taken the petty maneuver of rejecting acceptance of service therefore those who file in New Jersey will have to serve Stryker. A bellwether mediation process has also been ordered in which it is expected that Judge Martinotti will take a total of ten cases from the initial pool. Four mediators have also been chosen and the scientific evidentiary rules of New Jersey will apply in this MCL.
As far as federal cases for Rejuvenate lawsuits, there is no MDL set up just yet. A Massachusetts woman filed March 26th what is believed to be the first federal Stryker Rejuvenate lawsuit. Plaintiffs Lisa and Brett Lincoln are seeking damages related to what they allege is a defective device. May 30th in Louisville that issue will be considered. There are presently 57 federally filed cases in 19 district courts. Other venues such as the Northern District of Illinois, the Northern District of California, the Eastern District of Pennsylvania and the Eastern District of Arkansas have been requested at this time.
Since the formal recall was issued in July of 2012, those who live in a state with a one year statute of limitations are seeing their time for litigation running out. The majority of the revision surgeries occurred after the recall, therefore there may be some latitude regarding the statutes. Any recipient of a Stryker Rejuvenate or ABGII hip implant who has suffered harm from the device may benefit by speaking with an attorney regarding whether they should file a Rejuvenate lawsuit in order to receive compensation for their medical expenses, lost wages and pain and suffering related to a Stryker recalled hip implant.