Related Pages
More than 3,400 people sued Stryker after problems with its Rejuvenate and ABG 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 ABG 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 June 2018, more than 1,200 lawsuits were still pending in a Minnesota federal court as part of the MDL.
Almost 800 cases over ABG II hip replacements were also still pending in a New Jersey multicounty litigation (MCL) in May 2018.
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 June 2018, more than 100 lawsuits over the LFIT V40 had been combined in New Jersey state courts as a multicounty litigation (MCL). Another 310 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 Styker Hip Implants
- Branko Obradovic
- 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
- 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
- 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
- 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,”
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.”
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.
Models of Stryker hip implants named in lawsuits
- Rejuvenate
- ABG II
- Accolade TMZF
- Citation TMZF
- Meridian TMZF
- LFIT Anatomic CoCr V40 femoral head
Injured by a Stryker Rejuvenate hip implant?
Free Case Review
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 ABG 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 ABG 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 ABG II lawsuits canceled as Stryker offers to settle
-
November 2014
Stryker offers $1.4 billion settlement in Rejuvenate and ABG 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 ABG II settlement
-
March 2017
Deadline to apply for Rejuvenate and ABG 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
-
May 2018
271 lawsuits over LFIT V40 femoral heads were pending in the Massachusetts MDL
-
May 2018
1,240 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
- A single lawsuit filed by an individual or small group on behalf of a large group of people
- Lawsuit undergoes “class certification” in which a court rules whether the case can be a class action
- Filed in either state or federal court
- People taking part must have suffered the same injuries
- Can be filed for damages so small they would not be worth pursuing in individual lawsuits
- All parties receive a proportionate share of any award or settlement
Multidistrict Litigation (MDL)
- Made up of several (even thousands) of individual lawsuits originally filed in multiple courts around the U.S.
- A federal panel determines whether lawsuits can be combined in a single multidistrict litigation
- Can only be filed federal courts (Some states allow MCLs or similar consolidation in state courts)
- Injuries may be similar but do not have to be exactly the same
- Individual awards or settlements can be quite large, hundreds of thousands of dollars in some cases
- 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 ABG 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.
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.
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
Stryker added eight more sizes of LFIT V40 femoral heads in a May 2018 notice. The company said it had seen “higher than expected” failure rates. Stryker manufactured all the affected devices before March 4, 2011.
The 2016 notice affected more than 42,500 LFIT V40 femoral heads. Stryker did not say how many the May 2018 notice affected. But the notice included 50 pages of lot numbers.
“Complaints of new or continued pain, stiffness, instability or swelling in the hip, groin, buttock or thigh warrant further investigation.”
Stryker advised doctors to consider lab tests for patients already implanted with the recalled devices if they showed symptoms of possible complications.
