May 28, 2014 - In January, 2014, it was reported that Stryker Corporation settled the first four Rejuvenate and ABGII hip replacement lawsuits filed against the company. Thousands more lawsuits are expected, following the ABGII and Rejuvenate recall in July, 2012. At the time of the recall, Stryker stated the two metal hip implants were failing at a higher rate than expected and that fretting and corrosion in the devices were causing an excess amount of metal ion debris to be released into the body.
These first four Stryker hip lawsuits were settled for an undisclosed amount, and Stryker is likely to settle many more Stryker ABGII cases in the coming months. Many patients with a Stryker ABGII have experienced symptoms of Stryker hip metallosis as well as chromium and cobalt poisoning. Despite the number of lawsuits pending against Stryker, the corporation’s product sales actually increased by about 8% in the last quarter of 2013. Further, Stryker recently paid $172 million to buy surgical room equipment manufacturer Berchtold Holding AG, who makes such surgical equipment as lighting and tables.
The Stryker ABGII Lawsuits Consolidated Into MDL’s and MCL’s
The number of Stryker ABGII lawsuits which have been consolidated into an MCL in New Jersey state court had grown to over 600 by the end of the 2013. This New Jersey MCL now contains more cases than the Federal MDL in the U.S. District Court for the District of Minnesota, which had reached 462 cases at the end of 2013. The Minnesota MDL encompasses all the cases in federal court across the nation. When the New Jersey MCL was formed in 2013, it began with only 10 plaintiffs; by September, the number was up to 382, and another 171 were added before the end of 2013. An MDL or MCL are not the same thing as a Stryker ABGII class action lawsuit. During a class action lawsuit, all cases are processed as a single case, and are really only useful when each plaintiff has very similar damages.
Stryker Uses the Statute of Limitations Defense
Stryker has attempted to use the Statute of limitations as a defense in one of their implant recall lawsuits. Judge Forrest overruled Stryker’s defense in the case, Cerqua v. Stryker Corp, which claimed the statute should begin running from the first time the patient noticed pain in the hip, therefore the statute had run. The judge ruled the statute should only begin running once the patient noticed worsening pain in the hip and spoke to his or her physician regarding the pain.
Statute of limitations are not a particularly clear area of the law, therefore it is unclear whether the statute begins when the procedure is performed, when the patient first experienced mild symptoms, the first time the patient talked to their doctor about the issue, or when the first test is done to determine whether complications exist. In any case, if you believe you suffered harm from a Stryker ABGII, it is better to speak to a Stryker hip recall lawyer sooner rather than later. Having your Stryker hip lawsuit filed can protect your interests as more information is discovered regarding the Stryker hip recall and more lawsuits are filed.