To get the latest experience from our website, please upgrade your browser.
Stryker lawsuits have been consolidated into multicounty litigation (MCL) in the Superior Court in Bergen County, N.J., and into multidistrict litigation (MDL) in the U.S. District Court of Minnesota. Consolidating similar cases against the same defendant can help lawsuits move more quickly.
In addition to the Rejuvenate and ABG II, plaintiffs may also file lawsuits against Stryker for its TMZF femoral stems, including the Accolade, Citation and Meridian, and LFIT cobalt-chromium V40 femoral head. Studies show these components may cause the same issues as the Rejuvenate and ABG II, including metallosis, implant failure and need for revision surgery. In November 2014, Stryker agreed to settle several thousand claims for $1.43 billion.
New Jersey Superior Court Judge Brian Martinotti is presiding over the MCL, which includes hundreds of lawsuits. The first suit was filed by Weitz & Luxenberg's Ellen Relkin in August 2012, and she expects many more cases to be filed.
The Stryker MDL, which includes nearly 1,700 lawsuits, is being overseen by U.S. District Judge Donovan W. Frank. Despite opposition by Stryker, the MDL includes the Rejuvenate and ABG II devices. The MDL is expected to grow.
People who received a Rejuvenate, ABG II or other Styker implant may suffer injuries. Medical device makers like Stryker have a duty to properly design their products and warn the public about any risks. The company recalled a number of its products, and it may have been too late for a number of people who received faulty implants. A qualified Stryker lawyer can protect your rights, help you find out if you have a claim and file a claim for compensation.
Lawsuits mention a number of Stryker metal-on-metal hip implants. According to court documents, the devices made of the company's proprietary TMZF alloy "were experiencing corrosion, fretting, and failure issues at the taper neck junction between the neck and chromium and/or cobalt head or ball."
Despite these concerns, Stryker marketed the devices anyway, lawsuits say. A number of people complained of complications such as pain, swelling, metal sensitivity and metallosis. People who are unsure if their implant is included in litigation should contact a Stryker lawyer to discuss their options.
Some models involved in lawsuits include:
People who were injured by Stryker’s Rejuvenate and ABG II neck and stem implants choose to pursue litigation to recover damages. The number of claimants continues to rise, including Dianne Pingel, Tracy Sponer, and Cheryl and Dan Helder.
Dianne Pingel of Boca Raton, Fla., sued Stryker after she received two faulty hip implants in 2011. Doctors found the cobalt levels in her blood were abnormally high, and she had pockets of fluid, and dying tissue and bone surrounding the hip. The metal debris caused her bone to die, and her femur was fractured during revision surgery.
Tracy Sponer of North Little Rock, Ark., had her Stryker Rejuvenate hip implanted on Sept. 6, 2011. A year later, she was forced to have painful revision surgery after the hip failed. The complaint accuses Stryker of “negligence and wantonness,” among other claims. Sponer claims permanent injury and demands compensation.
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 the blood and urine. She underwent a revision surgery to remove the device to remove the implants. Her lawsuit claims Stryker designed a faulty product and failed to test it.
People who filed Stryker lawsuits accuse the company of selling and marketing a defective device and failing to warn the public, among other claims. They also claim that Stryker was negligent because it failed to adequately design the RRejuvenate, ABG II and other TMZF metal-on-metal devices to ensure that they would not deteriorate, fret or corrode.
|Lawsuits already filed claim that Stryker:|
|Misrepresented that the devices would not corrode or fret, when in fact they did so almost immediately in some patients.|
|Used deceptive sales and marketing practices.|
|Falsely claimed that the devices were “safe alternative(s) to metal-on-metal bearing devices.”|
|Failed to act on reports of early failure.|
|Continued to sell the devices even after it knew that its patented titanium alloy performed poorly with cobalt chrome components.|
|Failed to warn patients and surgeons that the products can cause heavy metal poisoning.|