Couple Files Stryker Hip Implant Lawsuit

Having hip implant surgery is challenging enough—the recovery period, the high costs even with good insurance, and of course the innate risk of surgery itself. Now imagine if the hip implant was defective. This is exactly what many Stryker hip implant patients are facing, finding out after their surgery, notwithstanding pain and suffering, that their device may have been defective.

Technically not a metal-on-metal (MOM) hip implant, the Stryker system does have MOM components as well as the same complications. Fretting, erosion and metal poisoning are much more common than what many consider as acceptable. At the core of the growing hip implant multidistrict litigation (MDL) is the allegation that Stryker knew about the risks of hip implant failure but chose not to warn anyone about them.

One husband and wife team, Neysa and Thomas Bennett, filed their hip implant lawsuit on Sept. 26, 2013. When one person in a marriage is injured, it negatively impacts the spouse, too. The lack of affection, loss of income and earning potential, and mounting medical bills are something that both partners face.

“On January 28, 2011, Neysa Bennett had a right hip surgery at which time a Stryker Rejuvenate Modular Hip was installed,” the Bennett’s hip implant lawsuit states. “At the time Neysa Bennett had the Stryker Rejuvenate Modular Hip System implanted into her body, she did not know that the system was dangerously defective in that the junction of the stem and neck components of the System fret, galvanize, and corrode in a manner that results in implant failure and the release of toxic heavy metals into the body.”

The complaint alleges that neither Neysa nor the doctor had the chance to make an informed decision because both relied on Stryker to be forthcoming with the risks of hip replacement complications.

“On January 28, 2011, Richard Wixon, M.D. performed a right total hiparthroplasty on Neysa Bennett utilizing, among other hip implant component materials a Stryker Rejuvenate SPT Stem (lot #MJA7x6) and a Stryker Rejuvenate Modular Neck (lot #31714901). Richard Wixon, M.D. performed this hip replacement, including implantation of the defective Stryker Rejuvenate Modular System into Neysa Bennett’s body at Northwestern Memorial Hospital in Chicago, Illinois.”

Neysa was one of the last patients to receive this defective device before it was pulled from the market.

Hip Replacement Problems Lead to Painful Revision Surgery

“Following Neysa Bennett’s hip replacement surgery, on or about July 4, 2012, Defendants initiated a voluntary recall of the Stryker Rejuvenate Modular Hip System due to the potential for fretting and/or corrosion at or about the modular-neck junction. Prior to the aforesaid recall on July 4, 2012, Neysa Bennett and Thomas Bennett had no knowledge that the Stryker Modular Hip System or any of its component parts was defective. This fretting and corrosion resulted in adverse local tissue reactions manifesting with pain and/or swelling, as well as tissue necrosis, metallosis, adverse soft tissue reaction, and pseudotumor formation,” the Stryker hip lawsuit states.

Unfortunately for the Bennetts, this was just the beginning. Revision surgery is more dangerous and takes a longer recovery period than an initial hip replacement surgery.

“The Stryker Rejuvenate Modular Hip System was recalled because it was defective and not sold as warranted,” the hip implant lawsuits says. “As a direct and proximate result of the Defendants placing this defective system into the stream of commerce, and their representations and omissions regarding the same, Plaintiffs have suffered and continue to suffer both bodily injuries and damages, including but not limited to: past, present and future physical and mental pain and suffering; past, present and future medical, hospital, rehabilitative, and pharmaceutical expenses; and other related damages.”

A Lesson Learned

As the couple joins many others who learned the hard way how painful hip replacement complications can be, they may transfer their lawsuit to multidistrict litigation in the future. For now, they claim that “Defendants breached one or more of the aforementioned duties, resulting in the Plaintiff, Neysa Bennett, sustaining serious injuries, physical disability and permanent impairment; conscious past and present pain and suffering, which will continue to be suffered in the future; she has been kept from attending to her ordinary affairs; and has become liable for past present and future medical expenditures.”

The Bennetts feel tricked into thinking the device was safe, stating that “Through their public statements, and their descriptions of the Stryker Rejuvenate Modular Hip System, Defendants expressly and impliedly warranted, among other things, that the Stryker Rejuvenate Modular Hip System was efficacious and safe for its intended use; was designed and constructed of materials that would prevent fretting and corrosion; would last longer than competing hip implant devices; and was more suitable for younger adults than other devices given its purported longevity.”

The Bennetts are suing for negligence, strict product liability, breach of implied warranty, and loss of consortium.

The Stryker hip implant lawsuit is Neysa Bennett and Thomas Bennett v. Howmedica Osteonics Corp., et al, Case No.: 0:13-cv-02635-DWF-FLN, in the U.S. District Court for the District of Minnesota.

Did You Suffer Stryker Hip Implant Complications?

If you or a loved received a metal on metal hip implant after January 1, 2009, and went to experience hip replacement complications such as dislocated hip, metal poisoning, cancer, tissue death, pain or other injury, there’s still time to take legal action against the device manufacturer. These companies have already paid out millions of dollars to victims. Don’t delay – see if you qualify to pursue compensation to cover your medical bills, pain and suffering and other damages at the Metal on Metal Hip Replacement Class Action Lawsuit Investigation.