January 28, 2015 - Stryker Hip Multi-District Litigation
Attention Stryker Hip Implant Recipients - Recently, Stryker Corporation reached a 1.4 billion dollar settlement in its metal hip litigation. Read more about the Stryker Hip Settlement Agreement.
So far more than 400 cases against Stryker regarding the recalled Rejuvenate and ABGII have been filed in federal court in Minnesota in a consolidation MDL while New Jersey state court has over twice that number in a similar consolidation. Other cases have been filed in South Florida, Southern Georgia, Southern Alabama, Boston, Dallas, Tucson, St. Cloud, MN, Philadelphia and Little Rock. In October, 2013, Stryker agreed to set aside as much as $1 billion dollars in anticipation of Rejuvenate and ABGII litigation. In December, 2013, Stryker agreed to settle four of the New Jersey cases for an undisclosed amount. These are the first Stryker cases to be settled following the July, 2012 recall of the Rejuvenate and ABGII.
As many as 20,000 patients received one of the defective hip implants prior to the recall, and the first lawsuit was filed scarcely a month after the recall. Thousands more lawsuits against Stryker are expected; the Stryker cases could balloon into one of the biggest mass tort cases in the country. The settlement for the four implant recipients was reached after lengthy mediation; six cases were chosen by both parties as well as Superior Court Judge Brian Martinotti, however negotiations for two of the suits fell through. Plaintiffs in the Stryker cases are alleging muscle, nerve and bone damage, metallosis symptoms and symptoms of metal poisoning.
Stryker Hip Litigation Claims and Allegations:
Many of the lawsuits CLAIM one or more of the following:
· Stryker exhibited negligence in the design of the Rejuvenate and ABGII as the company did not ensure there would be minimal corrosion.
· Stryker exhibited negligence in the design of the Rejuvenate and ABGII as the taper neck junction between neck and stem fails to fit as expected.
· Stryker claimed the devices would not undergo corrosion or fretting, yet some patients experienced those issues soon after implantation.
· Stryker exhibited deceptive sales and marketing practices.
· Stryker marketed the Rejuvenate and ABGII as “safe alternatives to metal-on-metal bearing devices,” when in fact these claims were false.
· Stryker claimed their Rejuvenate and ABGII implants were a good fit for younger, more active patients, however the recall was issued less than three years later due to defective design and little testing regarding safety.
· Stryker exhibited a failure to act on reports of early failure
· The design of the Rejuvenate and ABGII were based on the Wright Profemur—another poorly designed device which is also involved in patient litigation.
· Stryker maintained sales of the Rejuvenate and ABGII devices even after they were aware that their patented titanium alloy performed poorly with cobalt and chromium metal components.
· Stryker exhibited a failure to warn patients and surgeons that the Rejuvenate and ABGII could potentially cause heavy metal poisoning.