A consumer recently filed a Stryker V40 lawsuit alleging that the hip replacement caused serious complications leading to him needing a risky revision surgery.

Plaintiff Michael W. recently filed a Stryker V40 lawsuit against Howmedica, alleging that the Stryker hips are prone to failure and can cause serious complications.

Michael says he was implanted with the ABG II Modular hip stem in his right hip in September 2011. Due to complications, Michael alleges he had to have the hip stem explanted in February 2018 during a revision surgery.

Stryker V40 Femoral Heads

Howmedica developed their Stryker V40 femoral head and stems to work together in a chrome cobalt hip replacement implant. The V40 in the name refers to the angular mismatch between the head and stem used in the hip implant, which form a “press fit” taper junction. However, the Stryker V40 lawsuit claims that this junction design is faulty and can result in “micro motion.” This motion can allegedly cause corrosion, the release of metallic debris, and in some cases, catastrophic dissociation. Catastrophic dissociation occurs when the femoral head falls of the femoral stem due to loss of metal. The Stryker V40 lawsuit argues that this hip replacement system is the only commercially available system to suffer from catastrophic dissociation.Apart from catastrophic dissociation, the release of metalis debris can cause an adverse tissue reaction and tissue death. These complications can cause a variety of symptoms including pain, disability, limited range of motion, pseudotumor formation, fluid collection, and detachment or tearing of muscle.“Defendants failed to adequately design and manufacture the LFIT CoCr V40 Femoral Head and its accompanying stems to insure that neither would corrode, erode, deteriorate, fret, and induce severe metal toxicity in the patient,” the Stryker V40 Lawsuit claims.Michael claims that Howmedica knew or should have know about the complications associated with their hip replacement systems, yet failed to warn patients about their allegedly defective systems. Although widespread taper lock failure initiated a voluntary recall of some models in 2016, Michael argues that Howmedica knew before this and should have recalled all models in the line. Additionally, the Stryker V40 lawsuit notes that the recall does not benefit any consumers who have already suffered from implant complications. “Defendants negligently and intentionally performed a recall that was inadequate in scope and gravity when they knew individuals with these devices would not learn of the recall from their surgeons and would not have necessary testing on a timely basis which could have mitigated the irreversible tissue damage patients have and are continuing to suffer,” the Stryker V40 lawsuit claims.Michael accuses the defendants of negligence, negligence per se, defective design, manufacturing defect, failure to warn, breach of warranties, violation of consumer protection laws, negligent misrepresentation, and unjust enrichment. The Stryker V40 lawsuit seeks compensatory damages, statutory damages, restitution, disgorgement, court costs, and attorneys’ fees.The Stryker V40 Lawsuit is Case No. 0:18-cv-02111-DWF-FLN and is part of the Stryker V40 MDL, In re: Stryker Rejuvenate and ABG II Hip Implant Products Liability Litigation, Case No. 1:17-md-02768-IT, in the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts.