ALERT: Your health is top priority. We’re committed to providing reliable COVID-19 resources to keep you informed and safe.

Stryker Hip Replacement Lawsuits

As of August 2019, there were nearly 2,000 Stryker hip replacement lawsuits in state and federal courts. Stryker agreed to a confidential settlement of lawsuits over its LFIT V40 Femoral Head in 2018. The company paid $2 billion in 2014 to settle Rejuvenate and ABG II hip lawsuits. Now, attorneys are investigating complications related to the company’s Tritanium Acetabular Shells.

This is an active lawsuit
See if you can file

See If You Qualify for Legal Action

You may be legally entitled to compensation for your injuries. Get a free case review today to find out if you are eligible.

We value your privacy. By submitting, you agree to our privacy policy and disclaimer. After submitting, you will be contacted by one of Drugwatch's trusted legal partners. This is legal advertising.

Stryker hip lawsuits claim faulty hip implants caused severe pain and other complications that required additional surgery to repair. The lawsuits blame metal parts in the implants for releasing toxic metal ions into the body. The metals can cause tissue damage, loosening of the implants and other complications.

At least six models of Stryker hip replacements or their components have been named in lawsuits. Three brands — Rejuvenate, ABG II, and LFIT Anatomic CoCr V40 femoral heads — have been included in federal mass litigations.

Tritanium Acetabular Shell Lawsuits

Attorneys are accepting cases from people who’ve suffered complications after receiving Stryker Tritanium Acetabular Shell hip implants.

The devices, which are designed to replace a person’s hip socket, are supposed to fuse to your own bones by encouraging bone growth, but they don’t always work. Sometimes the hip implants loosen shortly after surgery, causing pain that can only be fixed through more surgery.

If you’ve had a Tritanium hip device implanted within the past five years and are experiencing pain or have been told you need a revision surgery, you may want to speak with a lawyer.

A hip replacement should last decades — not months — and revision surgeries are expensive and painful. You may be entitled to compensation for your medical bills, pain and suffering and other expenses.

Stryker hip implant

LFIT V40 Femoral Head Settlement

Stryker and lawyers for plaintiffs suing the company over its LFIT V40 Femoral Head announced an initial settlement agreement on November 2, 2018. As of August 2019, there were still 689 lawsuits pending in the mass litigation in a Minnesota federal court.

Federal court documents confirmed that the agreement would include another 100 lawsuits combined in a New Jersey multicounty litigation (MCL).

Terms of the settlement were confidential as both sides finalized an agreement.

Hundreds of people filed lawsuits over the company’s LFIT V40 components after Stryker recalled 42,519 units in 2016, citing “higher than expected” complication rates.

Injured by a Stryker Rejuvenate hip implant? Get a Free Case Review

$2 Billion Rejuvenate and ABG II Settlement

In 2014, Stryker agreed to pay $1.43 billion to settle thousands of cases. 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.

Under the settlement, the deadline to file a lawsuit over those hip replacements was March 2017. Stryker expected all settlement payments to be delivered by the end of 2017.

As of August 2019, there were still 1,209 lawsuits pending in a Minnesota federal court as part of the Rejuvenate and ABG II multidistrict litigation. Almost 800 cases over ABG II hip replacements were also still pending in a New Jersey multicounty litigation in May 2018.

Stryker had recalled nearly 44,000 Rejuvenate and 9,000 ABG II implants in April 2012. The company sent out an Urgent Field Safety Notice that warned “fretting and/or corrosion” could lead to “metallosis, necrosis, and/or pain” for people implanted with the devices.

Timeline of Rejuvenate & ABG II Litigation
  • July 2012
    Stryker issued a market withdrawal of all Rejuvenate and ABG II hip implants worldwide after the company alerted doctors to potential health complications of the hips.
  • August 2012
    The first lawsuit was filed in New Jersey state courts.
  • June 2013
    U.S. Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation combined federal lawsuits into Minnesota federal court.
  • December 2013
    The first trial was canceled as Stryker offered to settle.
  • November 2014
    The company offered a $1.4 billion settlement.
  • December 2016
    Stryker extended the settlement.
  • March 2017
    The time period to apply for the settlement ended; Stryker promised to have all settlement payments sent out by end of year.
  • August 2019
    There were 1,209 lawsuits still pending in federal court in Minnesota.

People Who Have Filed Stryker Hip Lawsuits

Mern Direnzo received the Accolade TMZF and LFIT Anatomic V40 Femoral Head in October 2009. Following the hip replacement, blood tests showed high levels of metal ions in her blood and urine. She underwent a revision surgery to remove the device. Direnzo filed a lawsuit in 2014.

“[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,” Direnzo’s attorneys wrote in her complaint.

A 73-year-old man in Boynton Beach, Florida, filed a lawsuit after he required revision surgery less than two years after receiving a Stryker hip replacement. Branko Obradovic told the Palm Beach Post in 2013 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. “They should know what they are putting in someone’s body.”

Tracy Sponer of North Little Rock, Arkansas, had a 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 device failure and subsequent revision surgery had resulted in ongoing mental and physical pain.

Her complaint accused Stryker of “flagrant disregard for human life” and asked the court to award punitive damages to punish the company.

Stryker hip replacement
Stryker Lawsuit Facts
  1. Injuries Metallosis, loosening, dislocation, pain, revision surgery
  2. Manufacturer Stryker
  3. Top Settlement $2 billion (Rejuvenate and ABG II implants)

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

Terry Turner
Written By Terry Turner Writer

Terry Turner has been writing articles and producing news broadcasts for more than 25 years. He covers FDA policy, proton pump inhibitors, and medical devices such as hernia mesh, IVC filters, and hip and knee implants. An Emmy-winning journalist, he has reported on health and medical policy issues before Congress, the FDA and other federal agencies. Some of his qualifications include:

  • American Medical Writers Association (AMWA) and The Alliance of Professional Health Advocates member
  • Centers for Disease Control and Prevention Health Literacy certificates
  • Original works published or cited in Washington Examiner, MedPage Today and The New York Times
  • Appeared as an expert panelist on hernia mesh lawsuits on the BBC
Edited By
Emily Miller
Emily Miller Managing Editor
Legally Reviewed By

22 Cited Research Articles writers follow rigorous sourcing guidelines and cite only trustworthy sources of information, including peer-reviewed journals, court records, academic organizations, highly regarded nonprofit organizations, government reports and interviews with qualified experts. Review our editorial policy to learn more about our process for producing accurate, current and balanced content.

  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
  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
  3. Stryker. (2016, August 29). Urgent Field Safety Notice: RA 2016-028; LFIT Anatomic CoCr V40 Femoral Heads. Retrieved from
  4. Stryker. (2017, March 13). Urgent Field Safety Notice: RA 2016-028 – Update; LFIT Anatomic CoCr V40 Femoral Heads. Retrieved from
  5. Carlson, J. (2014, December 14). $1.4 Billion Settlement Announced in Artificial Hip Litigation. Retrieved from
  6. Singer, S. (2013, January 27). Artificial Hips Corrode, Poisoning Some Patients, Local Lawsuits Say. Retrieved from
  7. 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
  8. 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
  9. Voreacos, D. & Feeley, J. (2014, November 4). Stryker to Pay More Than $1 Billion for Recalled Devices. Retrieved from
  10. U.S. District Court District of Minnesota. (n.d.). Stryker Rejuvenate and ABG II Hip Implant Products Liability Litigation, MDL No. 2441. Retrieved from
  11. U.S. District Court District of Minnesota. (n.d.). Stryker Rejuvenate - MDL 13-2441. Retrieved from
  12. New Jersey Courts. (2017, November 21) Stryker LFIT Caselist. Retrieved from
  13. New Jersey Courts. (2017, December 18). ABG Stryker Caselist. Retrieved from
  14. Stryker. (2018, May 22). Product Safety Notification. Ministry of Health (Italy) - Ministero della Salute. Retrieved from
  15. U.S. District Court, DIstrict of Massachusetts. (2018, November 2). Order Aiding Private Settlement. Inre: Stryker LFIT V40 Femoral Head Products Liability Litigation. Retrieved from
  16. U.S. Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation. (2019, April 15). MDL Statistics Report - Distribution of Pending MDL Dockets by District. Retrieved from
  17. Carli, A., Warth, L. & Nestor, B.J. (2018, February 21). Primary Tritanium Acetabular Components Are Associated With a High Prevalence of Radiolucencies Which Compromise Clinical Function at Short Term Follow-Up. Retrieved from
  18. Carli, A.V. et al. (2017, February). Short to Midterm Follow-Up of the Tritanium Primary Acetabular Component: A Cause for Concern. Retrieved from
  19. Donovan, B. (2019, March 19). 3 Recent Studies Question Tritanium Acetabular Cup Survival Rate. Retrieved from
  20. Long, W.J. et al. (2018, June). Early aseptic loosening of the Tritanium primary acetabular component with screw fixation. Retrieved from
  21. U.S. Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation. (2019, July 16). MDL Statistics Report. Retrieved from
  22. U.S. Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation. (2019, August 15). MDL Statistics Report. Retrieved from
View All Sources
Who Am I Calling?

Calling this number connects you with one of Drugwatch's trusted legal partners. A law firm representative will review your case for free.

Drugwatch's trusted legal partners support the organization’s mission to keep people safe from dangerous drugs and medical devices. For more information, visit our partners page.

(877) 280-3908