Stryker Hip Replacement Lawsuits

Medical device maker Stryker paid $2 billion to settle lawsuits over two models of its hip implants in 2014. But the company faces a new round of lawsuits over problems with yet another Stryker hip implant

*Please seek the advice of a medical professional before discontinuing the use of this 1.

Written by

Senior Content Writer

Edited by

Kevin Connolly Managing Editor

This page features

11 Cited Research Articles

Fast Facts:

  • Stryker has paid more than $2 billion to settle Rejuvenated and AGB II hip replacement lawsuits.
  • There are currently more than 4,000 lawsuits filed over Stryker’s LFIT V40 femoral heads.
  • Hundreds more LFIT V40 lawsuits are expected to be filed before the first trial in 2019.

More than 3,400 people sued Stryker after problems with its Rejuvenate and AGB II hip led the company to pull the implants off the market. The company settled lawsuits over the devices in 2014. Less than two years later, the company recalled 42,000 other implants, triggering a new wave of lawsuits against the company.

Status of Stryker Hip Lawsuits and Settlements

Stryker has paid nearly $2 billion to settle thousands of lawsuits over its Rejuvenate and AGB II hip implants. The deadline to file a lawsuit under the settlement was March 2017. Stryker expected all settlement payments to be delivered by the end of 2017. As of November 2017, more than 1,800 lawsuits were still pending in a Minnesota federal court.

Meanwhile, lawsuits over the company’s LFIT V40 femoral head hip components are still being filed. Those cases are still in the early stages and hundreds more lawsuits over the devices could be filed before the first trial expected in late 2019.

As of November 2017, at least 83 lawsuits over the LFIT V40 had been combined in New Jersey state courts as a multicounty litigation (MCL). Another 131 lawsuits from across the U.S. had been combined in a Minnesota federal court as a multidistrict litigation (MDL). MDLs and MCLs allow several similar lawsuits to be consolidated to pool resources, reduce duplication and move cases more quickly through the courts.

Why People Sued Over Stryker Hip Replacements

People who sued Stryker over faulty hip implants claimed their devices caused severe pain and other complications that required additional surgery to repair.

Reasons Why People Sued Over Stryker Hip Implants

  • Branko Obradovic filed a lawsuit after he required revision surgery less than two years after receiving a Stryker hip replacement. He told the Palm Beach Post that he couldn’t sit for long periods of time and getting out of a car was an ordeal. “I’m very angry about the whole thing,” Obradovic said in 2013. “They should know what they are putting in someone’s body.”
  • Dianne Pingel of Boca Raton, Florida, filed the first lawsuit in the U.S. over Stryker’s Rejuvenate implants. She received two faulty hip implants in 2011, but by early 2013, she had undergone three revision surgeries to correct problems.
  • Tracy Sponer of North Little Rock, Arkansas, had her Stryker Rejuvenate hip implanted on Sept. 6, 2011. A year later, she was forced to have revision surgery after the hip failed. In her lawsuit, Sponer claimed the failure and revision surgery caused her ongoing mental and physical pain.
  • Mern Direnzo had the Accolade TMZF and LFIT Anatomic V40 Femoral Head implanted in October 2009. Blood tests showed high levels of metal ions in her blood and urine. She underwent a revision surgery to remove the device.
“[Stryker] failed to adequately design and manufacture the device to insure that it would not fret, corrode, erode, deteriorate and induce severe metal toxicity in patients,”

- Mern Direnzo’s complaint filed in her lawsuit against Stryker, May 20, 2014

Accusations Against Stryker in Hip Lawsuits

Stryker’s faulty hip implants disrupted the lives of thousands of people who thought their lives would improve after getting a hip replacement.

Accusations Against Stryker in Hip Implant Lawsuits

  • Stryker knew or should have known it had manufactured, marketed, distributed and sold defective devices
  • Defects in the implants’ designs led to loosening, infection and metallosis in people implanted with the devices
  • Stryker failed to take reasonable care for the safety and well-being of patients implanted with faulty implants
  • Stryker failed to adequately test the devices
  • The company made “false and misleading” representations about the safety of the devices
“[C]onduct of [Stryker] is attended by circumstances of fraud, malice, or willful and wanton conduct, and constitutes a flagrant disregard for human life so as to warrant the imposition of exemplary damages.”

- Tracy Sponer’s complaint filed in her lawsuit against Stryker, November 7, 2012

Stryker Hip Brands Named in Lawsuits

Court documents show that people from across the country experienced similar complications from several types of Stryker hip replacements. At least six models of Stryker hip implants or their components have been named in lawsuits.

Hip Implant up close

Models of Stryker Hip Implants Named in Lawsuits

  • Rejuvenate
  • ABG II
  • Accolade TMZF
  • Citation TMZF
  • Meridian TMZF
  • LFIT Anatomic CoCr V40 femoral head

Verdicts and Settlements in Stryker Hip Lawsuits

In 2014, Stryker agreed to pay $1.43 billion to settle thousands of lawsuits over its Rejuvenate and AGB II hip implants. It extended the settlement to more patients in 2016, raising the total settlement amount to somewhere between $2 billion and $2.2 billion. The average amount paid for each problematic hip implant was $600,000.

  • July 2012

    Stryker issues a market withdrawal of all Rejuvenate and ABG II hip implants worldwide after the company alerts doctors to potential health complications from the hips

  • August 2012

    First Stryker lawsuit over Rejuvenate and AGB II filed in New Jersey state courts

  • June 2013

    U.S. Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation combines federal Stryker lawsuits into Minnesota federal court

  • December 2013

    First trial over Rejuvenate and AGB II lawsuits canceled as Stryker offers to settle

  • November 2014

    Stryker offers $1.4 billion settlement in Rejuvenate and AGB II lawsuits

  • August 2016

    Stryker recalls more than 40,000 LFIT Anatomic CoCr V40 (LFIT V40) Femoral Heads for taper lock failure

  • December 2016

    Stryker extends Rejuvenate and AGB II settlement

  • March 2017

    Deadline to apply for Rejuvenate and AGB II settlement; Stryker promises to have all settlement payments sent out by end of year

  • April 2017

    JPML combines first LFIT V40 lawsuits into an MDL in Massachusetts federal court

  • May 2017

    New Jersey courts combine all state court LFIT V40 lawsuits into a multicounty litigation in Bergen County

  • November 2017

    131 lawsuits over LFIT V40 femoral heads were pending in the Massachusetts MDL

  • November 2017

    1,861 Rejuvenate and ABG II hip lawsuits remain pending in Minnesota MDL

  • September 2019

    First LFIT V40 lawsuit scheduled for trial in Massachusetts

Stryker Hip Replacement Class Action Lawsuits

There are currently no class-action lawsuits over Stryker hip implants. The lawsuits over the LFIT V40 implants are primarily in either the multicounty litigation in New Jersey or the multidistrict litigation in Massachusetts.

MCLs and MDLs provide some of the same benefits as class-action lawsuits such as allowing people to pool their resources in court. But there are significant differences.

Differences Between Class Action Lawsuits and MDLs

Class Action Lawsuits Multidistrict Litigation (MDL)
A single lawsuit filed by an individual or small group on behalf of a large group of people Made up of several (even thousands) of individual lawsuits originally filed in multiple courts around the U.S.
Lawsuit undergoes “class certification” in which a court rules whether the case can be a class action A federal panel determines whether lawsuits can be combined in a single multidistrict litigation
Filed in either state or federal court Can only be filed federal courts (Some states allow MCLs or similar consolidation in state courts)
People taking part must have suffered the same injuries Injuries may be similar but do not have to be exactly the same
Can be filed for damages so small they would not be worth pursuing in individual lawsuits Individual awards or settlements can be quite large, hundreds of thousands of dollars in some cases
All parties receive a proportionate share of any award or settlement Awards and settlements can be tailored to each individual’s particular injuries

Stryker Sent Out Safety Warnings Over Defective Hip Implants

In July 2012, Stryker issued an Urgent Field Safety Notice about problems with its Rejuvenate and AGB II hip implants. The company warned that “fretting and/or corrosion” could lead to “metallosis, necrosis, and/or pain” for people implanted with the devices.

The company immediately withdrew both products from the market.

Stryker issued another notice for certain LFIT V40 Femoral Heads in August 2016, citing taper lock failure. The notice listed “potential hazards” that could occur with the recalled devices. These included “excessive metallic debris,” which has been associated with metallosis in other hip implants.

Potential Hazards of Recalled LFIT V40 Femoral Heads

  • Disassociation of femoral head from hip stem
  • Fractured hip stem trunnion
  • Excessive metallic debris
  • Insufficient ROM
  • Insufficient soft tissue tension
  • Noise
  • Loss of implant: bone fixation strength
  • Excessive wear debris (polymeric)
  • Implant construct with a shortened neck length

In another notice seven months later, the company repeated that doctors did not need to change their follow-up procedures, but suggested they be alert for possible symptoms that could mean serious complications resulting from LFIT V40 implants.

“Complaints of new or continued pain, stiffness, instability or swelling in the hip, groin, buttock or thigh warrant further investigation.”

- Stryker Urgent Field Safety Notice for LFIT V40 Femoral Heads, March 13, 2017

Stryker advised doctors to consider lab tests for patients already implanted with the recalled devices if they showed symptoms of possible complications.

Author

Terry Turner is an Emmy-winning, former television journalist. He is an associate member of the American Bar Association, the ABA’s Health Law group and a member of the Alliance of Professional Health Advocates. He holds six certificates in Health Literacy for Healthcare Professionals from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. As a Washington-based investigative reporter, he routinely reported on health and medical policy issues before Congress, the FDA and other federal agencies. Terry received his B.A. in Media Arts from Lyon College.


{

Hide Sources

  1. Superior Court of New Jersey, Bergen County. (2014, May 5). Mern Direnzo and Robert Direnzo v. Howmedica Osteonics Corp., et al.; Complaint. Retrieved from https://45ijagbx6du4albwj3e23cj1-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/wp-content/uploads/2014_05_23_14_06_55.pdf
  2. U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Arkansas. (2012, November 7). Tracy Sponer v. Howmedica Osteonics Corp., et al.; Complaint and Jury Demand. Retrieved from https://www.aboutlawsuits.com/wp-content/uploads/2012-11-07-Sponer-Complaint.pdf
  3. U.S. Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation. (2017, November 15). MDL Statistics Report. Retrieved from http://www.jpml.uscourts.gov/sites/jpml/files/Pending_MDL_Dockets_By_District-November-15-2017.pdf
  4. Stryker. (2016, August 29). Urgent Field Safety Notice: RA 2016-028; LFIT Anatomic CoCr V40 Femoral Heads. Retrieved from https://www.hpra.ie/docs/default-source/field-safety-notices/october-2016/v29355_fsn.pdf?sfvrsn=2
  5. Stryker. (2017, March 13). Urgent Field Safety Notice: RA 2016-028 – Update; LFIT Anatomic CoCr V40 Femoral Heads. Retrieved from https://www.hpra.ie/docs/default-source/field-safety-notices/april-2017/v29355_fsn2.pdf?sfvrsn=2
  6. Carlson, J. (2014, December 14). $1.4 Billion Settlement Announced in Artificial Hip Litigation. Retrieved from http://www.startribune.com/nov-3-1-4-billion-settlement-in-artificial-hip-litigation/281375461/
  7. Singer, S. (2013, January 27). Artificial Hips Corrode, Poisoning Some Patients, Local Lawsuits Say. Retrieved from http://www.palmbeachpost.com/lifestyles/health/artificial-hips-corrode-poisoning-some-patients-local-lawsuits-say/LzCZuGGbr9j2X1Wo3GdSpJ/
  8. Stryker. (2016, December 19). Settlement Agreement Between Howmedica Osteonics Corp. and the Counsel Listed on the Signature Pages Hereto Dated as of December 19, 2016. Retrieved from http://www.strykermodularhipsettlement.com/docs/master_settlement_agreement12.19.16.pdf
  9. Stryker. (2016, December 19). Stryker Orthopaedics To Compensate Additional Eligible U.S. Patients Who Had Surgery To Replace Their Rejuvenate Modular-Neck And/Or Abg Ii Modular-Neck Hip Stems. Retrieved from http://phx.corporate-ir.net/phoenix.zhtml?c=118965&p=RssLanding&cat=news&id=2230617
  10. U.S. Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation. (2017, February 15). MDL Statistics Report – Distribution of Pending MDL Dockets by District. http://www.jpml.uscourts.gov/sites/jpml/files/Pending_MDL_Dockets_By_District-February-15-2017.pdf
  11. Voreacos, D. & Feeley, J. (2014, November 4). Stryker to Pay More Than $1 Billion for Recalled Devices. Retrieved from https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2014-11-03/stryker-to-pay-more-than-1-billion-for-recalled-devices
  12. U.S. District Court District of Minnesota. (n.d.). Stryker Rejuvenate and ABG II Hip Implant Products Liability Litigation, MDL No. 2441. Retrieved from http://www.mnd.uscourts.gov/MDL-Stryker/introduction.shtml
  13. U.S. District Court District of Minnesota. (n.d.). Stryker Rejuvenate - MDL 13-2441. Retrieved from http://www.mnd.uscourts.gov/MDL-Stryker/index.shtml

Are you experiencing complications after undergoing a total hip replacement?
Get Help Now