Are you one of the thousands of plaintiffs involved in the multi-district litigation against Stryker Corporation? Did you have a hip implant surgery and receive a LFIT Anatomic CoCr V40 Femoral Head, ABG II or a Rejuvenate metallic implant, the latter two of which were voluntarily recalled in 2012? If these statements are true and you would like to speak with a Stryker Hip Implant legal funding specialist please call us toll free at 888-697-7352. To learn more about the Stryker recall and the global settlement please read the details below.
About The Stryker Corporation
The Stryker Corporation is a Fortune 500 medical technologies firm base in Kalamazoo, Michigan. In the United States, products are marketed directly to doctors, hospitals and other healthcare facilities, and include products such as joint replacement implants, surgical equipment, surgical navigation systems, and endoscopic systems.
The company began in the 1940’s as a small company in rural Michigan and has since grown to market nearly 60,000 products worldwide becoming a global leader in the medical device industry.
November 2018 Stryker Global Settlement
A multi-state team of attorneys, comprised of experienced multi-district litigation experts from Florida, Georgia, Illinois, Massachusetts, Minnesota and New York, collaborated to secure a settlement to help resolve a multi-district litigation in Massachusetts and New Jersey.
According to a recent Law.com review, the team of attorneys consisted of Joe Osborne of Boca Raton law firm Osborne & Francis, Peter J. Flowers of Chicago law firm Meyers & Flowers, Michael L. McGlamry of Georgia-based Pope McGlamry Kilpatrick Morrison & Norwood, and Ashleigh Raso of Minnesota-based Meshbesher & Spence.
Joining them in the most recent round of litigation were:
- Massachusetts attorney Walter Kelley of Bernheim Dolinsky Kelley
- Brenda S. Fulmer & C. Calvin Warriner III of West Palm Beach-based Searcy Denney Scarola
- Pope McGlamry litigator M.J. Blakely
- Ellen Relkin with Weitz & Luxenberg’s New York office.
In April of 2017, Joe Osborne with the help of the executive team, filed a petition with the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation to consolidate all LFIT V40 lawsuits against Stryker in the District of Massachusetts. In May of 2017, after the petition was granted, complaints filed in state court suits were consolidated as multi-county litigation in New Jersey Superior Court in Bergen County
What is Wrong with Stryker Metal-on-Metal Hip Implants?
While all artificial hip implants carry associated risks, there are a number of additional concerns and unique risks regarding metal-on-metal hip implants. According to the FDA:
MoM hip implants, the metal ball and the metal cup slide against each other during walking or running. Metal can also be released from other parts of the implant where two implant components connect. Metal release will cause some tiny metal particles to wear off of the device into the space around the implant. Wear and corrosion at the connection between the metal ball and taper of the stem may also occur. Some of the metal ions (e.g. cobalt and chromium) from the metal implant or from the metal particles will enter the bloodstream.
Unfortunately, one person’s body can react differently than the next, so it is impossible to predict who will experience a reaction, the type of reaction that will occur, when that action will occur, and how severe that reaction may be.
Styrker Hip Implant Side Effects
According to the United Stated Federal Drug Administration there are certain symptoms that indicate that a hip implant is not functioning properly. These symptoms would include hip, leg or groin pain, swelling around the hip joint, popping, grinding, clicking or squeaking sounds from the hip, and a limp or change in mobility.
Side effects include:
- Loss of mobility
- Pain & inflammation
- Adverse tissue reaction
- Joint instability
- Broken bones
- Leg length discrepancy
- Need for revision surgery
Additional symptoms for metal poisoning should be monitored as well. These include impaired kidney function, skin rashes, hearing issues, vision issues, thyroid problems, depression, and cardiomyopathy, which is a weakened or enlarged heart muscle.
About Defective Product Lawsuits
A defective product lawsuit can be filed against a manufacturer if an attorney believes that products contains a manufacturing defect, a design defect, or a failure to warn consumers.
- Manufacturing defects occur when a product is not safe to use, even though the product was designed as such. A well-known case involved Blitz gas cans.
- Design defects occur when a product was made according to its design, but the end product contains defects that can still endanger people. A well-known case involved the Ford Pinto.
- A failure to warn is often referred to as a supply chain issue or marketing defect and occurs when correct warnings or instructions are not supplied. Well-known cases involve asbestos manufacturers and its failure to warn about mesothelioma.
Metal-on-Metal hip implants, including Stryker’s LFIT Anatomic CoCr V40 Femoral Head, ABG II and Rejuvenate, would classify as design defects. Even when used as intended, they can endanger the health and safety of the end user. Over the years, similar design defect lawsuits were filed against major device manufacturers, including Zimmer, DePuy, Smith & Nephew and Wright.
The Metal-on-Metal Hip Implant Industry
According to a 2013 summary of hip implant recalls, Stryker has recalled the most hip devices in the previous decade. There were 178 Class II recalls and 53 Class III recalls, which are likely to cause serious and life threatening harm to patients. Stryker recalled devices because:
- Fracturing: surgical instruments (broach and rasp handle11) used to size the femur for the implant, may fracture during a surgery; hip stem demonstrated fractures
- Cracking: hip stem coating may crack
- Labeling Issues: the sizes of different implant components were mislabeled, which may lead to an incorrect implant being used; device components had incorrect expiration date; instructions for the femoral stem were not labeled
- Manufacturing Issues: acetabular shells too thick; acetabular shells have different thicknesses which can increase the gap between the shell and liner causing “interference”; hip stems didn’t meet specifications for strength; components used for hip implants were made with a raw material that were not up to standards; “exceeded foreign materials standards”
- Packaging Issues: the sterility of the hip stem may be compromised because of poor packaging; the package of implant components had a “visual defect”; 16mm stem in 18mm stem package
The Thrivest Difference
At Thrivest, we provide flexible financial options to help you meet your cash flow needs. Our friendly staff of funding experts guides each client from beginning to solution. We adhere to the principles of Quality, Honesty, Community, and Creativity. If you think our pre-settlement legal funding solutions could be the right fit for you, please call one of our funding specialists at 888-697-7352. Or to apply online, simply Click Here and fill out our quick form application.