Recently, Stryker Corporation, manufacturer of a metal-on-metal hip replacement
system, agreed to a $1.4 billion settlement for injury claims. The Kalamazoo,
Michigan-based company pulled its Rejuvenate and ABG II devices in July
2012 after advising physicians of a potential danger to surrounding hip
tissue and additional health concerns.
By this time, however, thousands of patients had already been implanted
with the devices and begun to suffer adverse health consequences. Some
of the most common side effects reported include tissue and organ damage,
pain, inflammation, metal poisoning, and other debilitating injuries.
As a result of these injuries, thousands of lawsuits have been filed against
Stryker Corporation and other major manufacturers of faulty metal hip
replacement systems. Eighteen-hundred of these lawsuits have been consolidated
in a U.S. District Court for the District of Minnesota with Judge Donovan
Frank presiding over the hearings. New Jersey state judge, Brian Martinotti
is overseeing approximately 2,100 lawsuits in Bergen County Superior Court
in Hackensack. Depending on individual circumstances, each claimant that
required revision surgery as a result of the defect is expected to receive
All plaintiffs have similar claims, blaming the metal-on-metal implants
for high levels of metal debris in their blood, and alleging that the
company was negligent in the device's design and safety testing. Additionally,
the plaintiffs claim that Stryker was negligent in its duty to warn the
public of dangers, and actually took measures to conceal facts about the
risks. In an April 2012 "Urgent Safety Alert," Stryker listed
the danger of "excessive metal debris and/or ion generation"
in a warning to surgeons. Additional safety concerns include:
- Hip implant pain and loosening necessitating revision surgery
Compensation for Stryker Hip Injuries
Those who have been injured due to a manufacturer's negligence are
legally eligible to recover compensation. Claimants in the Stryker hip
replacement lawsuits are seeking damages for lost earnings and medical
expenses including the cost of revision surgery. Some plaintiffs are seeking
punitive damages to penalize the company for their grievous misconduct.
Additionally, those plaintiffs still outfitted with the implants are requesting
medical monitoring in an effort to detect unfavorable health consequences early.