A new metal hip implant lawsuit has been filed in the multidistrict litigation underway against Howmedica Osteonics Corp. The multidistrict litigation, or MDL, was developed in response to the large number of lawsuits with similar allegations filed after the Stryker LFIT V40 recall.

Husband and wife plaintiffs Jean W. and William W., residents of Wisconsin, jointly brought forth this claim against the metal hip implant manufacturer.

The Stryker lawsuit states that Jean underwent a total hip replacement in September 2012. She was implanted with the LFIT femoral head that subsequently became part of the Stryker LFIT V40 recall. She was also implanted with the Accolade TMZF femoral stem.

In April 2017, Jean had the femoral head subject to the Stryker LFIT V40 recall explanted. Jean claims she suffered injury to herself, and William claims loss of consortium and loss of services as a result of Jean’s implantation with the Stryker metal hip.

Jean says she suffered from excessive levels of cobalt and chromium in her blood and believes these were attributable to a defect in the Stryker metal hip. The problems Jean suffered and those that plagued William as a result were allegedly due to the device component that was subject to the Stryker LFIT V40 recall.

These excess levels of cobalt and chromium in Jean’s blood resutled from defects in the hip implant, the couple claims. They allege the components of the Stryker hip implants lead to fretting and corrosion which can cause metal debris to enter the body. This metal debris can cause local adverse tissue reactions and can cause tissue death, also known as necrosis.

With adverse tissue reactions and tissue death, pain and inflammation can result, causing the patient to lose mobility, develop pseudotumors or fluid collections and the only remedy for patients who experience these reactions is for them to have the Stryker device explanted in a revision surgery and have a new device implanted in its place.

Eventually, a Stryker LFIT V40 recall was initiated, and was categorized as a Class II recall which may cause “temporary or medically reversible adverse health consequences or where the probability of serious adverse health consequences is remote.” This is the second most serious type of recall classification, only superseded by a Class I recall that indicates the defective product may cause serious harm or death.

Together, Jean and William have brought forth a number of allegations against the product manufacturer including negligence, negligence per se, strict products liability for defective design, manufacturing defect and failure to warn, breach of express warranty, breach of warranty as to merchantability, breach of implied warranties, violation of consumer fraud and/or unfair and deceptive trade practices under state law, negligent misrepresentation, loss of consortium, unjust enrichment and punitive damages.

The couple is seeking compensatory damages, statutory damages, attorneys’ fees and costs, prejudgment interest, costs of suit, restitution, disgorgement of profits and any additional relief deemed just and proper by the Court.

The Stryker LFIT V40 Recall Lawsuit is Case No. 1:17-md-02768-IT and is part of the Stryker MDL In re: Stryker LFIT V40 Femoral Head Products Liability Litigation, MDL No. 2768, in the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts.