Accepting Cases

Wright Medical Hip Implant Lawsuits

Wright Medical agreed to two settlements totaling $330 million to resolve hundreds of lawsuits over its hip-replacement implants. The company no longer makes hip implants.

Complications after a Hip Replacement?

Did you or a loved one suffer complications after receiving a hip implant? You may be eligible for compensation.

Wright Medical Lawsuit Facts
  1. Number of Lawsuits More than 2,000
  2. Plaintiff Injuries Metallosis, loosening, fractures, device breaking, revision surgery
  3. Defendants Wright Medical (OrthoRecon division)
  4. Bellwether Trial Date November 2015
  5. MDL Location Northern District of Georgia
  6. Class-Action Status No class actions underway
  7. Litigation Status Final settlements underway
  8. Top Settlements $240 million to settle 1,300 lawsuits (2016), $90 million to settle roughly 600 lawsuits (2017)

Facing roughly 2,000 lawsuits after selling its hip-implant manufacturing operations, Wright Medical sought to settle cases. Only two lawsuits ever made it to trial ahead of the settlements, and Wright lost both of those.

Status of Wright Medical Hip Implant Lawsuits

In October 2017, Wright Medical agreed to settle all remaining hip-implant lawsuits against the company for $90 million. This followed an earlier settlement in November 2016 when the company settled more than 1,200 lawsuits over its hip implants for $240 million.

As of March 2018, there were still 322 lawsuits pending in a federal multidistrict litigation (MDL) eligible for the latest settlement. No additional lawsuits could be added to the MDL after October 18, 2017. The 2017 settlement also applied to dozens of cases that were still pending in a Judicial Council Coordination Proceeding in California state court.

Wright’s hip implants were manufactured by the company’s OrthoRecon division. Wright sold OrthoRecon in 2013, but remained legally responsible for lawsuits over its hips. Wright Medical no longer manufactures hip implants.

What People With Wright Hip Replacements Sued Over

Most people who filed lawsuits over Wright hip replacements claimed the devices released metal toxins that caused tissue damage and could cause the implants to fail. Others claimed the devices failed prematurely.

Are you suffering complications from a Wright Hip Replacement? Free Case Review
Reasons People Sued over Wright Medical Hip Implants
  • Metallosis – a form of metal poisoning that can damage bone and other tissue
  • Fractures
  • Implant breaking or dislocating
  • Revision surgery to remove and replace faulty implants

Metallosis was blamed on wear between the metal components of the hip implants. The parts rubbing against each other released microscopic metal ions into patients’ bodies. These metal particles can destroy muscle, bone and other tissue around the implants.

John Wallace

John Wallace of Arizona received a Conserve implant in his left hip in 2005. In December 2011, his doctor found elevated chromium and cobalt levels in his blood. Wallace required revision surgery which led to further complications including a “spontaneous dislocation” of the hip.

Linda Bohnenstiehl

Linda Bohnenstiehl of Illinois received Conserve and Profemur hip devices in a Missouri hospital in 2008. She alleged that the Profemur device fractured at the femoral neck in 2010, causing her physical injuries, debilitation and pain and suffering. The injuries forced her to have a revision surgery.

Leon Thomas

Leon Thomas of Arkansas received a Conserve Total Hip System in 2006. He began experiencing severe pain in his left hip and groin in 2011 and was forced to have revision surgery. His doctor suspected a loose hip socket, and he found elevated chromium and cobalt levels in his blood. Thomas is permanently impaired and suffers ongoing discomfort from nerve damage, drop foot and other injuries.

Accusations Against Wright Medical

People injured by Wright hip implants claim the company knew about the risks its devices posed but did not do enough to prevent problems or to warn the public.

Lawsuit Accusations
  • Wright “concealed or suppressed” information about its implants’ safety
  • The company knew or should have known of “unreasonably high risk of failure and serious side effects”
  • Wright failed to adequately test the device

Wright Medical Hip Implants

Wright’s Conserve and Profemur hip devices were named in the majority of lawsuits. The MDL was limited to only Conserve hips and Profemur System components connected to certain Conserve components.

Wright Hips Named in Lawsuits
  • Conserve Total Hip Implant System
  • The company knew or should have known of “unreasonably high risk of failure and serious side effects”
  • Wright failed to adequately test the device

In February 2012, the U.S. Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation (JPML) centralized lawsuits involving Conserve hip implants to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Georgia. More than 640 lawsuits over the devices would eventually be included in the multidistrict litigation (MDL).

In April 2012, the first of dozens more Wright hip lawsuits filed in California state courts were combined into a Judicial Council Coordination Proceeding (JCCP) in Los Angeles Superior Court.

MDLs and JCCPs allow parties in several similar lawsuits improve communication, reduce costs and increase court efficiency.

Verdicts and Settlements in Wright Medical Hip Implant Lawsuits

Two juries returned verdicts totaling $15.5 million against Wright in lawsuits over the company’s hip replacements. The company eventually offered $330 million through two settlements to resolve roughly 2,000 lawsuits against the company.

Timeline of Wright Medical Hip Verdicts and Settlements
  • Novemeber 2013
    Wright settles the first lawsuit over its Profemur hip stem for an undisclosed amount five days before trial. Timothy Courson had claimed permanent injuries and had sought $3 million in damages.
  • June 2015
    California jury awards Alan Warner $4.5 million in first Wright hip lawsuit to go to trial. Warner claimed the Profemur device snapped while he was walking (the court later reduced the award to $1 million).
  • November 2015
    Jury awards $11 million to former ski instructor Robyn Christiansen after finding a Conserve implant caused tissue damage (the court later reduced the amount to $2.1 million).
  • November 2016
    Wright Medical settles 1,292 lawsuits in the federal MDL and the consolidated court action in California for a total of $240 million.
  • October 2017
    Wright agrees to settle all remaining hip lawsuits, roughly 600 of them in total, for $90 million. This settlement includes all people not covered in the first settlement including people who filed lawsuits after the November 2016 agreement and those who had missed the deadline to file a lawsuit.
  • September 2019
    Estimated date of final Wright Medical payment to patients.

Wright Hip Replacement Class Action Lawsuits

There are currently no class-action lawsuits involving Wright Medical hip replacement implants.

Class actions are single lawsuits filed by one or a few people on behalf of a larger group. In the case of Wright hips, hundreds of people filed their own individual lawsuits. Most of these were combined in either the federal MDL in Atlanta or in the state JCCP in Los Angeles.

Early Failures Higher than Expected

Studies and reports to federal regulators have found many Wright hip implants failed sooner or more often than expected.

A review of 92 patients who received Wright Conserve hips between 2005 and 2010 found that nearly 1 in every 5 patients needed revision surgery to correct problems with the devices. The average time between receiving a Wright hip replacement and requiring corrective surgery was just 4 1/2 years.

In 2015, the company that had purchased Wright Medical’s hip division started receiving a higher-than-expected number of reports of fractures with the Profemur. MicroPort Orthopedics recalled 10,825 of the devices.

“If the modular neck fractures, the patient may experience sudden pain, instability and difficulty walking and performing common task.”

Profemur Recall Notice, August 7, 2015

The FDA declared the Profemur recall a Class I recall, the agency’s most serious type. The recall notice warned that an acute fracture of the device would require emergency surgery. It also warned that such a fracture in a Profemur hip stem could “lead to neurovascular damage, hematoma, hemorrhage, and even death.”

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

Did you find Drugwatch helpful?

17 Cited Research Articles

  1. Eslinger, B. (2015, September 25). $4.5M Wright Hip Implant Verdict Cut to $1M by Calif. Judge. Retrieved from https://www.law360.com/articles/707545/4-5m-wright-hip-implant-verdict-cut-to-1m-by-calif-judge
  2. Healio. (2016, November 3). Wright Medical Technology Enters Into Settlement Agreement in Metal-on-metal Hip Litigation. Retrieved from http://www.healio.com/orthopedics/hip/news/online/%7Ba4ad9dac-4db9-46b7-a029-7a00ffbb1f55%7D/wright-medical-technology-enters-into-settlement-agreement-in-metal-on-metal-hip-litigation
  3. McGlamry, P. (2016, November 2). Pope McGlamry: Plaintiffs' Leadership Counsel Announce a Settlement Program for Wright Medical Metal-on-Metal Hip Implants. Retrieved from http://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/pope-mcglamry-plaintiffs-leadership-counsel-announce-a-settlement-program-for-wright-medical-metal-on-metal-hip-implants-300356297.html
  4. Salvatore, C. (2016, September 1). Metal Hip Patient Asks 11th Circ. To Affirm $2M Defect Win. Retrieved from https://www.law360.com/articles/835657/metal-hip-patient-asks-11th-circ-to-affirm-2m-defect-win
  5. U.S. District Court Northern District of Georgia. (n.d.). In Re: Wright Medical Technology, Inc., Conserve Hip Implant Products Liability Litigation. Retrieved from http://www.gand.uscourts.gov/12md2329
  6. U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Georgia Macon Division. (2013, October 11).Civil Action: No. 5:12‐CV‐173 (CAR) Order on Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgement. Retrieved from https://ecf.gamd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/show_public_doc?2012-00173-58-5-cv
  7. U.S. District Court Eastern District of Missouri Eastern Division. (2014, January 29). Case No. 4:13-CV-853 (CEJ) Memorandum and Order. Retrieved from https://docs.justia.com/cases/federal/district-courts/missouri/moedce/4:2013cv00853/126758/36
  8. Judicial Council of California. (n.d.). Civil Case Coordination Proceeding (JCCP) Log; JCCP 4710. Retrieved from: http://www.courts.ca.gov/documents/CivilCaseCoord_2005toPresent_JCCPLog.pdf?1512068784467
  9. Wasserman, E. (2015, November 30). Wright Medical Slapped with $11M Verdict in Bellwether Case Over Metal Hip Implant. Retrieved from http://www.fiercebiotech.com/medical-devices/wright-medical-slapped-11m-verdict-bellwether-case-over-metal-hip-implant
  10. Wright. (2013, June 19). Wright Medical Group, Inc. and MicroPort Scientific Corporation Enter Into Definitive Agreement Under Which MicroPort Will Acquire Wright’s OrthoRecon Business. Retrieved from http://phx.corporate-ir.net/phoenix.zhtml?c=129751&p=irol-newsArticle&ID=1831451
  11. Wright. (2016, November 2). Wright Medical Group N.V. Announces Entry Into Metal-on-metal Hip Litigation Settlement Agreement. Retrieved from http://ir.wright.com/phoenix.zhtml?c=129751&p=RssLanding_pf&cat=news&id=2218769
  12. Siegel, D. (2015, June 12). Plaintiffs Awarded $4.5M in First Wright Hip Implant Product Liability Trial. Retrieved from http://blog.cvn.com/breaking-plaintiffs-awarded-4.5m-in-first-trial-over-wright-hip-implants
  13. U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Georgia. (2017, October 18). In Re: Wright Medical Technology, Inc., Conserve Hip Implant Products Liability Litigation; Order. Retrieved from http://www.gand.uscourts.gov/sites/default/files/wsd2329_doc2022.pdf
  14. Mogensen, S.S., et al. (2016, March 29). High Re-Operation Rates Using Conserve Metal-On-Metal Total Hip Articulations. Retrieved from: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4814723/
  15. FDA.gov. (2015, October 2). PROFEMUR Neck Varus/Valgus CoCr 8 Degree, Part number PHAC 1254 by MicroPort Orthopedics: Class I Recall - Unexpected Rate of Fractures After Surgery. Retrieved from https://wayback.archive-it.org/7993/20170112164121/http://www.fda.gov/Safety/MedWatch/SafetyInformation/SafetyAlertsforHumanMedicalProducts/ucm465529.htm
  16. FDA.gov. (2015, October 2). MicroPort Orthopedics Inc., PROFEMUR Neck Varus/Valgus CoCr 8 Degree, Part number PHAC 1254. Retrieved from: https://wayback.archive-it.org/7993/20170112083746/http://www.fda.gov/MedicalDevices/Safety/ListofRecalls/ucm465501.htm
  17. U.S. Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation. (2018, March 15). MDL Statistics Report. Retrieved from http://www.jpml.uscourts.gov/sites/jpml/files/Pending_MDL_Dockets_By_District-March-15-2018.pdf
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.

Live Chat Icon livechat loading spinner