Accepting Cases

Hip Replacement Lawsuits, Verdicts and Settlements

People who developed painful complications after hip replacements have filed more than 28,000 lawsuits against companies who made defective hip implants. Manufacturers have spent billions of dollars settling more than half of those cases, even as more people file new hip implant lawsuits.

Suffer from complications after a hip replacement?

If you or a loved one suffered an injury after a hip replacement, you may be eligible for compensation.

Hip Replacement Lawsuit Facts
  1. Number of Lawsuits About 28,000
  2. Plaintiff Injuries Metal poisoning, dislocation, loosening, tissue damage, severe pain, implant failure, revision surgery
  3. Defendants DePuy, Stryker, Zimmer, Biomet, Wright, Smith & Nephew
  4. Litigation Status 5 major settlements, more than 14,000 cases still pending
Legally Reviewed

Drugwatch content is legally reviewed for accuracy and quality.

Examples of trusted legal reviewers include qualified mass torts lawyers and certified paralegals.

Drugwatch writers gather lawsuit information by studying court records, watching lawsuit proceedings and speaking with experienced attorneys.

Lawsuits claim hip implant manufacturers made defective products and failed to warn the public about the risks. Metal-on-metal hip implants are at the center of these lawsuits because plaintiffs say their hip replacements resulted in complications requiring additional surgeries to correct problems and replace the devices.

People file product liability or wrongful injury lawsuits when companies sell dangerous products or fail to warn the public of the risks associated with the devices. Medical device lawyers argue that people who were promised durable, effective hip replacements ended up with devices that had high failure rates and caused complications including pain and metal poisoning.

Status of Hip Lawsuits and Settlements

While most lawsuits involving metal-on-metal hip implants have been resolved, more than 14,000 hip cases were still pending across the country as of July 2018.

Multidistrict litigations (MDLs) involving at least two manufacturers of hips are still in relatively early stages. MDLs allow several lawsuits – even thousands at a time – to move more quickly and less expensively through the legal process. Lawyers representing people hurt by hip implants or attorneys representing the companies that made the devices may request lawsuits be combined into an MDL.

Lawsuits over Smith & Nephew’s BHR and R3 hips and Stryker’s LFIT V40 femoral head have only recently been combined into MDLs and a multicounty litigation (MCL) in New Jersey. Meanwhile bellwether trials over DePuy’s Pinnacle hips are still underway. Bellwether trials are test cases that can measure how juries will react to the evidence in a case. They can help determine eventual settlements.

Complications from a Hip Replacement? Get a Free Case Review
Hip Implant Lawsuits Underway
DePuy Pinnacle Logo

Depuy’s Pinnacle Lawsuits

After plaintiffs lost the first bellwether trial in the DePuy Pinnacle MDL, juries awarded verdicts to the people injured by hips in the next three trials. In March 2016, a jury awarded $502 million to five plaintiffs. Another jury awarded $1 billion to six plaintiffs in December 2016. The verdicts were later reduced under Texas’ lawsuit caps to $151 million and $543 million respectively. The third trial resulted in a $247 million verdict for six plaintiffs in November 2017. There were 9,605 lawsuits pending in the MDL in July 2018.

Smith & Nephew Logo

Smith & Nephew

In April 2017, the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation combined 28 lawsuits over the company’s BHR and R3 hip implants into a single MDL in Maryland. As of July 2018, there were 387 lawsuits pending in the MDL.

Stryker Logo

Stryker LFIT V40

In April 2017, a federal panel combined 6 lawsuits over Stryker’s LFIT V40 femoral head into an MDL in Massachusetts federal court. As of July 2018, there were 327 lawsuits in the MDL. The first bellwether trial has been tentatively set for September 2019. Meanwhile, New Jersey’s State Supreme Court also combined all state court LFIT V40 lawsuits into a multicounty litigation (MCL) in Bergen County in May 2017. More than 100 cases are pending in the New Jersey MCL.

Some hip implant manufacturers have resolved thousands of lawsuits through settlement agreements in recent years. Settlement payments to some of the people who sued are still going out in some of those cases.

Recent Hip Implant Settlements
Biomet Logo


Biomet settled all of its M2a Magnum cases for $56 million in January 2015. Zimmer bought Biomet in 2015, and the company estimated that it would take $33.4 million to resolve pending claims in its annual report.

DePuy Logo

Depuy's ASR Lawsuits

Johnson & Johnson, DePuy’s parent company, settled more than 8,000 lawsuits for $4 billion in November 2013. In March 2015, DePuy extended the settlements to cover an addition 1,800 claims. The estimated cost to the company was an additional $420 million.

Stryker Logo


Stryker settled most cases against it in 2014. The agreement was expected to total about $1.4 billion. The settlement was extended in December 2016 to cover additional plaintiffs. The majority of payments were expected to be completed by the end of 2017.

Wright Logo


Wright settled 1,292 claims involving its Conserve, Dynasty and Lineage implants for $240 million in November 2016. The company announced a further $89.75 million settlement in October 2017. The settlement also covered dozens of cases in California state courts.

Zimmer Logo


Zimmer settled almost all of its Durom Cup lawsuits in March 2016 for an estimated $314 million. There were 260 cases still pending in the MDL as of July 2018.

Most settlements only cover claimants who had qualified revision surgeries. People who did not have a revision surgery or who filed a lawsuit after the statute of limitations expired may be ineligible for some settlements.

Juries have Awarded Millions to Hip Implant Patients

Jury awards have ranged from the millions of dollars to more than $1 billion for a group of plaintiffs in one hip replacement trial.

If juries find a company’s actions were especially harmful, they may award the plaintiff punitive damages in addition to compensation for their injuries. In some cases, punitive damages have led to large jury awards for people hurt by faulty or defective hip implants.

Major Jury Verdicts in Hip Replacement Lawsuits
  • July 2015
    Kline V. Zimmer Gary Kline won a $9.2 million verdict against Zimmer when a jury believed the Durom Cup that Kline received had a design defect. Kline’s hip implant failed after 15 months. An appeals judge later reduced Kline’s award to $828,000.
  • November 2015
    Christiansen V. Wright Wright lost an $11 million verdict involving its Conserve implant. The plaintiff, Robyn Christiansen, proved that her metal implant caused tissue damage after six years. Her reward was eventually reduced to $2.1 million on appeal.
  • March 2016
    Aoki Et Al. V> Depuy Five plaintiffs won a joint case against DePuy in the second Pinnacle bellwether trial. DePuy was told to pay $502 million to the claimants who said their Pinnacle implants were defective. The award was later reduced to $151 million. An appeals court threw out the verdict in April 2018. The case can be retried.
  • December 2016
    Andrews Et Al. V. Depuy Six plaintiffs won a $1 billion verdict in the third Pinnacle bellwether trial. They claimed the hip implants caused metal to enter their blood and tissue, causing a number of complications. The award was later reduced to $543 million under a Texas law capping jury awards.
  • November 2017
    Alicea Et Al. V. Depuy Six plaintiffs won a $247 million verdict in the third Pinnacle bellwether trial. They claimed the hip implants caused severe pain and inflammation, bone erosion, tissue loss and other complications.

However, appeals court judges may sometimes reduce the amount of large jury verdicts if the judge believes the amount ordered by the jury was excessive. Many states also have limits on the amount of punitive damages juries can award, which often forces appeals judges to reduce awards.

What You Can Sue for if Your Hip Replacement Fails

Faulty or defective devices can cause a wide variety of hip implant complications, but lawsuits tend to focus on common defects that cause serious injuries.

You may be able to file a metal-on-metal hip implant lawsuit if you experienced any of these conditions:
  • Dislocation
  • Loosening
  • Metallosis - Metal Poisoning
  • Revision Surgery

Current lawsuits involve people who received a hip implant in 2007 or later and suffered an injury that requires an additional, or revision, surgery to fix their problem.

Accusations Against Hip Implant Manufacturers

Thousands of plaintiffs claim hip implant manufacturers made defective products and failed to warn the public about the risks. Metal-on-metal implants are at the center of litigation today because plaintiffs say the implants caused complications that led to painful surgeries to correct problems and replace the implants.

Lawsuits filed against hip implant manufacturers claim:
  • Manufacturers marketed their devices as safe when they were not
  • Companies failed to properly design, manufacture and test the safety of their implants
  • Implant makers failed to adequately warn patients about the risk of their devices
  • Implants failed earlier than expected
  • Hip implants led to injuries
  • Patients suffered complications and required revision surgery

Hip Replacement Manufacturers and Brands Facing Lawsuits

Five companies dominated the metal-on-metal hip implant market and have been involved in the largest hip replacement lawsuits. The majority of hip implants named in lawsuits have metal-on-metal designs.

Manufacturers' Model(s) Involved in Lawsuits
Pinnacle, ASR XL Acetabular System, ASR Hip Resurfacing System
Smith & Nephew
Birmingham (BHR) Hip, R3 Hip Acetabular System, Modular SMF Hip System (MIS Hip Stem), Modular Redapt, Revision Femoral Hip System, Emperion Hip System
ABG II Modular-neck Hip Stems, Rejuvenate Hip, LFIT V40 Femoral Head (used with Stryker Accolade hips)
Wright Medical Technology
Conserve Plus, Lineage, Dynasty, Profemur Z Hip Stem
Durom Cup

The FDA classifies metal-on-metal hip systems as Class III (higher risk) devices, but the agency regulates them under the 510(k) premarket notification program. The program allows companies to get their products on the market without rigorous testing if they are similar enough to an already-approved product.

MDL or Class Action Lawsuit for Defective Hip Implants

Most major hip implant lawsuits and settlements have involved multidistrict litigation (MDL) instead of class action lawsuits. The two legal approaches may sound similar, but have major differences.

Class Action Lawsuit
  • A limited number of people file on behalf of others with similar injuries caused by the same device
  • Injuries have to be the same or very similar
  • Any settlement or verdict is divided proportionately among those in the lawsuit
  • May be filed in state or federal court
Multidistrict Litigation (MDL)
  • Individuals, sometimes thousands, file individual lawsuits through their lawyers who ask a federal panel to combine them in an MDL
  • Range of injuries may be much wider
  • Any settlement or verdicts may vary from person to person based on types of injuries or other factors
  • Limited to federal courts (States may also create similar method of consolidating cases)

MDLs tend to make more sense for most people bringing lawsuits against a hip implant manufacturer. They allow for differences in the types of injuries people suffer and make much of the legal process more efficient.

History of Metal-on-Metal Hip Recalls and Lawsuits

Metal-on-metal implants became popular throughout the 2000s, but quickly fell out of favor as reports of complications mounted, leading to recalls, lawsuits and FDA actions.

  • 2000
    Sulzer Orthopedics recalls 40,000 hip replacement sockets for dislocation risk
  • 2001
    More than 2,200 people require revision surgery to replace Sulzer implants
  • 2001
    Three women win $15.4 million verdict against Sulzer, more than 1,000 lawsuits filed
  • 2002
    Sulzer settles 4,000 lawsuits for $1 billion ($200,000 to each plaintiff)
  • 2008
    Zimmer temporarily recalls its Durom Cup hip component
  • 2010
    U.S. Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation (JPML) consolidates Durom Cup lawsuits into an MDL
  • 2010
    DePuy ASR lawsuits combined into an MDL
  • 2011
    Lawsuits over DePuy’s Pinnacle hip implants combined in an MDL
  • 2012
    Wright Medical, Smith & Nephew and Biomet each issue large recalls of hip implants
  • 2012
    Lawsuits over Wright Medical’s Conserve implants combined into an MDL
  • 2012
    Lawsuits over Biomet’s M2a Magnum implants combined into an MDL
  • 2013
    JPML combines lawsuits over Stryker’s Rejuvenate and ABG II into an MDL
  • 2016
    FDA strengthens approval process for metal-on-metal hips
  • 2016
    Stryker recalls more than 42,000 LFIT V40 femoral head components
  • 2017
    JPML combines lawsuits over Smith & Nephew BHR and R3 implants into an MDL
  • 2017
    JPML combines first federal lawsuits over Stryker LFIT V40 femoral heads into an MDL in Massachusetts federal court. New Jersey follows suit a month later, combining state lawsuits over the device into an MCL in state court.

Not all metal-on-metal hip models with high complication or failure rates were recalled. Manufacturers simply removed some of them from the market.

Please seek the advice of a medical professional before making health care decisions.

Did you find Drugwatch helpful?

37 Cited Research Articles

  1. Federal Register. (2016, February 18). Effective Date of Requirement for Premarket Approval for Total Metal-on-Metal Semi-Constrained Hip Joint Systems. Retrieved from
  2. U.S. Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation. (2017, April 5). Transfer Order. Retrieved from
  3. Carlson, J. (2014, December 14). $1.4 Billion Settlement Announced in Artificial Hip Litigation. Retrieved from
  4. Chang, K. (2001, August 7). When Medical Devices Fail in the Body. Retrieved from
  5. DePuy Synthes. (2010, August 26). DePuy Orthopaedics Voluntarily Recalls ASR™ Hip System – DePuy. Retrieved from
  6. Duroni, L. (2014, December 3). Zimmer Prevails in 1st Durom Hip Implant. Retrieved from
  7. Dye, J. & Garza, L.M. (2014, October 23). Johnson & Johnson DePuy Wins First Trial Over Pinnacle Hips. Retrieved from
  8. Eslinger, B. (2015, September 25). $4.5M Wright Hip Implant Verdict Cut to $1M by Calif. Judge. Retrieved from
  9. Fay Cortez, M. (2014, April 24). Zimmer to Buy Biomet for $13.4 Billion Adding Orthopedics. Retrieved from
  10. Feeley, J. & Voreacos, D. (2013, November 13). J&J Said to Reach $4 Billion Deal to Settle Hip Lawsuits. Retrieved from
  11. Greene, K. (2014, February 3). Biomet to Pay $56M to Settle Hip Replacement MDL. Retrieved from
  12. Harris, A. (2013, April 17). Johnson & Johnson Wins Hip Implant Jury Trial in Chicago. Retrieved from
  13. Healio. (2016, November 3). Wright Medical Technology Enters Into Settlement Agreement in Metal-on-metal Hip Litigation. Retrieved from
  14. Johnson & Johnson. (2016, March). Annual Report 2015. Retrieved from
  15. Lexis Legal News. (2016, April 4). ‘Majority’ of Zimmer Durom Hip MDL Plaintiffs Said to Reject Mandatory Settlement. Retrieved from
  16. Olson, E. (2002, February 4). Sulzer Offers $1 Billion Settlement for Defective Implants. Retrieved from
  17. Possley, M. , Voreacos, D. & Pettersson, E. (2013, March 8). J&J Must Pay $8.3 Million Over Defective Hip, Jury Says. Retrieved from
  18. Salvatore, C. (2016, September 1). Metal Hip Patient Asks 11th Circ. To Affirm $2M Defect Win. Retrieved from
  19. Singer, S. (2013, January 27). Artificial Hips Corrode, Poisoning Some Patients, Local Lawsuits Say. Retrieved from
  20. Stride, M. (2013, February 19). Smith & Nephew Sued Over Painful Hip Replacement. Retrieved from
  21. U.S. Food and Drug Administration. (2008, September 26). Class 2 Device Recall Durom Cup. Retrieved from
  22. U.S. Food and Drug Administration. (2012, July 9). Stryker Initiates Voluntary Product Recall of Modular-Neck Stems. Retrieved from
  23. U.S. Food and Drug Administration. (2017, January 4). Class 2 Device Recall Modular Redapt(TM) Hip Systems. Retrieved from
  24. U.S. Food and Drug Administration. (n.d.). Concerns about Metal-on-Metal Hip Implant Systems. Retrieved August 30, 2012, from
  25. Van Acker, J. (2015, October 28). Zimmer Undoes Jury’s ‘Excessive’ $9.2M Hip Implant Verdict. Retrieved from
  26. Zimmer Biomet. (n.d.). 2015 Annual Report. Retrieved from
  27. Perriello, B. (2017, September 21). Plaintiff Wins New Trial in DePuy ASR XL Hip Suit. Retrieved from:
  28. Perriello, B. (2017, May 8). Stryker Hits Enrollment Milestone in 2nd Metal-on-Metal Hip Implant Settlement. Retrieved from:
  29. U.S. District Court, Northern District of Georgia. (n.d.). In RE: Wright Medical Technology, Inc., Conserve Hip Implant Products Liability Litigation. Retrieved from:
  30. U.S. District Court, District of Maryland. (n.d.). In re Smith & Nephew Birmingham Hip Resurfacing (BHR) Hip Implant Products Liability Litigation (MDL No. 2775). Retrieved from:
  31. U.S. District Court, Northern District of Texas. (2017, October 10). MDL 2244 (Jury Trial 09/18/17). Retrieved from:
  32. Federal Register. (2016, February 18). Effective Date of Requirement for Premarket Approval for Total Metal-on-Metal Semi-Constrained Hip Joint Systems. Retrieved from:
  33. FDA. (2016, August 29). Class 2 Device Recal Stryker LFIT Anatomic V40 Femoral Head. Retrieved from
  34. New Jersey Courts. (2017, May 30). Designation of New Jersey State-Court Litigation Involving Stryker LFIT CoCr V40 Femoral Heads as Multicounty Litigation. Retrieved from
  35. U.S. Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation. (2017, April 5). In Re: Stryker Orthopaedics LFIT V40 Femoral Head Products Liability Litigation. Retrieved from
  36. Bellon, T. (2018, June 25). Federal Judge Closes Wright Medical Hip Implant MDL After Settlement. Reuters. Retrieved from
  37. U.S. Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation. (2018, July 16). MDL Statistics Report - Distribution of Pending MDL Dockets by District. Retrieved from
View All Sources
Who Am I Calling?

Calling this number connects you with Wilson and Peterson, LLP or one of its trusted legal partners. A law firm representative will review your case for free.

Wilson and Peterson, LLP funds Drugwatch because it supports the organization’s mission to keep people safe from dangerous drugs and medical devices.

(855) 396-3709

To contact Drugwatch Managing Editor Kevin Connolly, call (855) 839-9780.