A man alleges in a metal hip lawsuit that as a result of defective design, he suffered permanent bodily injury from Stryker hip implant metallosis side effects and is seeking damages from the medical device maker.

William Darrell Myer underwent the hip replacement procedure on Sept. 2, 2010, with his orthopedic surgeon reportedly choosing the product because the company claimed that the Stryker Rejuvenate hip implant “offered increased durability and fit over traditional hip replacement systems” and as a result, patients “would need replacements less often,” according to the Stryker hip implant lawsuit.

Initially there was no issue with the procedure. The Stryker hip implant lawsuit, however, notes that other manufacturers faced problems using metal-on-metal hip implant junctions. For years, concerns over the use of cobalt and chromium and the possibility of corrosion and fretting have been known and the possibility of metal shavings leaching into the body have been a real problem for device makers, according to the man’s Stryker metal hip implant attorney.

In spite of that, subsidiary Howmedica Osteonics marketed the product as safe and unlikely to cause Stryker hip implant metallosis side effects. In April 2012, the company issued an “Urgent Field Safety Notice” that was effectively a recall. Around that time, he returned to his orthopedic surgeon, who immediately decided to perform a revision procedure to remove the device.

Upon examination, the doctor detected that leaching metals led to a pseudotumor, tissue and bone necrosis as well as continued inflammation. When he removed the Stryker Rejuvenate hip implant, “Dr. Hefley noted significant fretting and corrosion at the neck/stem junction.”

Meyer is not alone. Enough Stryker hip implant lawsuits have been filed that the federal cases have been consolidated into multidistrict litigation. Numerous metal-on-metal hip implant makers have also been subject to implant lawsuits.

The Stryker hip implant lawsuit is William Darell Meyer v. Howmedica Osteonics Corp., et al., Case No. 13-cv-0506, in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Arkansas.