Stryker Lawsuits

Corpus Christi Defective Medical Device Attorneys, Representing Clients throughout Nueces County

Though numerous manufacturers have been implicated in ongoing litigation over hip implants, Stryker Corporation is among the most notable. Recalling its widely used ABG II and Rejuvenate models in 2012, Stryker attempted to stem the growing tide of damage to its corporate reputation, though thousands of individuals were already suffering from the effects of its device failures and had initiated litigation.

If you or your loved one suffered injuries or complications following hip surgery, you may be entitled to financial compensation. Contact Bandas Law Firm, P.C. to speak to an experienced Corpus Christi defective medical device lawyer about your legal rights and options. Your initial consultation is completely free, and we are only paid if we successfully recover compensation for you.

Widespread Failures Alleged in Stryker Hip Lawsuits

Common allegations in Stryker hip implant lawsuits filed in recent years include claims that:

• The device maker failed to conduct thorough and accurate pre- and post-market testing of its hip implant products
• Hip devices were marketed by Stryker Corporation as providing a universal and perfect match to the needs of younger patients, thus erroneously indicating to physicians that these products represented a certain superiority over other similar implants
• Stryker and its affiliates did not warn of known dangers that included metal poisoning and fragmentation in the Rejuvenate and ABG II hip replacement models
• Stryker and its marketing affiliates breached warranties, both express and implied to both patients and medical professionals

The metal toxicity at issue in Stryker’s recall of defective hip implants has the potential to cause serious harm to patients, including:

• Thyroid issues
• Decreased kidney function, including the likelihood of renal failure, if left untreated
• Increased likelihood of visual problems, including the possibility of functional blindness
• Rashes and other dermatological complications
• Cognitive impairment, otherwise known as confusion
• Cardiomyopathy, or abnormal changes to the patient’s heart muscles

Patients who received Stryker implants exhibiting the types of failures that have formed the basis of lawsuits have additionally reported experiencing symptoms such as pain in the hip region, noticeable swelling around the hip, grinding sounds emanating from the joint replacement, and finally, significant to complete loss of mobility.

2014 Stryker Hip Replacement Lawsuit & Settlement Agreement

In a major device litigation development, Stryker agreed in late 2014 to a settlement involving thousands of claims relating to both hip implant models. While the agreement called for Stryker to pay $1.43 billion to those harmed by its products, that figure is not subject to a cap and is likely to rise once anticipated future claims arise. The settlement agreement is designed to address cases in the existing multi-county litigation in New Jersey state courts, as well as the federal multidistrict litigation situated in Minnesota. Specifically, the federal multi-district litigation and settlement process for Stryker hip replacements covers any claims made by U.S. residents from any state.

Plaintiff recoveries pursuant to the settlement will vary depending on the specifics of their injuries, the type of complications suffered, and whether the patient required multiple surgeries to address the effects of their device failures. The settlement is intended to compensate individuals who received hip replacement surgeries implanting Stryker hip replacement devices prior to 11/3/2014, with further claims expected to arise as these devices fail in additional patients over time.

Stryker Rejuvenate Implant Complications

Known within the industry as a “modular-neck” joint replacement device with interchangeable components, the Stryker Rejuvenate implant was touted as a revolutionary tool for creating customizable solutions based on the individual biomechanics of patients. Though much of the device is plastic-on-ceramic in nature, the junction of the neck and stem is metal-on-metal construction. It is important to note that the Rejuvenate hip components sold by Stryker received approval from the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) through its somewhat controversial 501(k) fast-track process, which has been assailed by observers for its worrying lack of trial and testing requirements.

After having been on the American market for a number of years, adverse event reports filed with the FDA began to mount, with most relating to incidents of corrosion near the neck-stem joint area of the Rejuvenate implant. Subsequently, Stryker voluntarily recalled the devices in the summer of 2012, while also ceasing worldwide production, as well as marketing and sales of the model.

That same year, Stryker sent an Urgent Field Notice to doctors, alerting them to growing suspicions that the Rejuvenate devices were connected to complications such as:

• Inflammatory reactions
• Allergic reactions in patients with metal sensitivities
• Corrosion and release of metal particles around the site of the implant
• Severe pain and noticeable swelling
• Tissue damage
• Reductions in mobility

Lawsuits involving Stryker Rejuvenate hip implants began to gain steam by the latter portion of 2012, with a multidistrict litigation (MDL) created in June 2013 to consolidate the growing number of federal lawsuits related to the devices. The volume of litigants in the MDL continued to rise and mass tort litigation in New Jersey also began to develop, signaling to Stryker that it might be time to entertain settlement options. To that end, the company agreed in November 2014 to offer compensation of at least $1 billion to resolve thousands of pending cases.

Recourse for Other Victims of Stryker Hip Implant Failures

It is important for hip replacement patients to realize that the Stryker settlement agreement reached at the end of 2014 is not meant to apply to patients whose revision surgeries occur after November 3 of that year. That is not to say, however, that the flow of new claims from hip replacement patients has ebbed. If the company does not enter into additional agreements concerning settlement for uncounted plaintiffs in the pre-existing litigation cases, Stryker may find itself the subject of a new wave of litigation and trials.

Though the failure of a major medical device such as a hip implant is a devastating experience, the law provides victims the ability to seek compensation through the courts, something of which growing numbers of individuals have taken advantage. Plaintiffs in most Stryker hip lawsuits seek to recover damage amounts necessary to cover medical expenses, lost wages, and to provide compensation for the emotional and physical trauma resulting from their hip replacement experience. Many patients may also wish to obtain punitive damages, which are a viable legal claim, as a way to send a message to Stryker and other device manufacturers that this type of negligent hip replacement product manufacturing cannot be tolerated.