Numerous patients across the United States have been complaining about Stryker hip replacement components, alleging they had to undergo revision surgery due to their defective nature.

One of the most recent lawsuits was filed by a couple from Indiana, alleging the claimant was not warned against the potentially defective nature of the Stryker hip replacement components.

Plaintiff Richard D. and his wife Marilyn D. filed a lawsuit after allegedly discovering that the company either knew or should have known that their Stryker hip replacement components could potentially worsen the patient’s condition.

Like many other patients, Richard says he opted for the all metal Stryker hip replacement components to restore function in his hip joints. The Stryker metal hip replacement system was supposed to help restore his movement and help him get back to his normal routine.

With these benefits in mind, Richard says he underwent left hip replacement surgery on July 31, 2012 and had the LFIT V40 femoral head and Stryker Restoration femoral stem implanted. While Richard suffered no initial adverse reactions, he says he soon developed symptoms often associated with metallosis.

Also known as blood metal poisoning, this condition is allegedly caused by the all metal Stryker hip replacement components interacting and causing metal ions to be shed into the bloodstream. This can cause a multitude of other metal hip implant complications including:

• Debilitating Pain
• Fretting
• Infection
• Corrosion
• Limited Movement
• Tissue Death
• Formation of Pseudotumors

Doctors allegedly discovered that Richard was suffering from metallosis after his blood was tested. The lawsuit alleges that the tests showed elevated levels of chromium and cobalt.

Richard is still contending with the long lasting effects of metallosis and opted to file legal action after learning that these Stryker hip replacement components were recalled from the market.

Overview of Stryker Metal Hip Litigation

Complaints like Richard’s eventually spurred the formation of multidistrict litigation (MDL) against the device maker. The MDL consists of similar product liability lawsuits from patients who allegedly experienced serious device complications from Stryker hip replacement components.

Stryker reportedly issued a recall of the metal hip implant components after patients reported a high rate of early device failure. Most of these patients were forced to undergo revision surgery to remove and replace the defective Stryker hip replacement components.

It is important to note that revision surgery is considered riskier than the initial implant procedure, due to higher risk of infection. When discussing different prosthetic options, Richard and his physician were allegedly unaware of the potentially defective nature of the Stryker hip replacement components.

Richard was assured that the Stryker metal hip replacement was a safe and reliable prosthetic system, with no risk of serious complications. Richard states he would not have agreed to have the Stryker hip replacement components implanted if he had known of their potentially defective nature.

Richard and Marilyn’s Stryker metal hip lawsuit is joining MDL No. 2768, where it will stand alongside other claims alleging similar injuries. Richard and Marilyn are seeking a multitude of damages against Stryker for claims of negligence and failure to warn.

This Stryker Metal Hip Lawsuit is Case No. 1:18-cv-11804-IT, in the United States District Court of the District Court of Massachusetts.