A new Stryker LFIT hip lawsuit was filed in U.S. District Court, District of Massachusetts on March 13, 2018, against Howmedica Osteonics Corp. The plaintiff, James W., is a citizen and resident of the state of Louisiana claiming injury as a direct result of his implant in a total left hip arthroscopy (TKA) on Oct. 27, 2011.

The surgery was undertaken by orthopedic surgeon Dr. Peter C. Krause at the University Medical Center in New Orleans.

According to the short-form of his Stryker LFIT hip lawsuit, James was implanted with the LFIT anatomic CoCr V40 femoral head and Accolade TMZF femoral stem.

A little over six years later in December 2017, the femoral head in question was removed at the same hospital by Dr. Krause.

James alleges in his Stryker LFIT hip lawsuit that he could not have had any knowledge of problems associated with the V40 femoral head until it was voluntarily recalled by the company on Aug. 29, 2016.

This recall was followed up by a formal U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) recall initiated on Nov. 9, 2016.

Additionally, the plaintiff makes clear in his Stryker LFIT hip lawsuit that he was completely oblivious to levels of chromium and cobalt in his blood—markers of metal toxicity—until his blood work was completed after notification of the recall and found to be excessive.

Metallosis and Metal-on-Metal Hip Implants

The named defendant, which does business as Stryker Orthopedics, is no stranger to the recall process. Stryker also developed, sold, and distributed the Rejuvenate and ABG 2 modular hip replacement systems that had to be recalled in 2012 because of numerous complaints of corrosion.

This corrosion allegedly occurred because of these products’ metal-on-metal composition. They were made from cobalt and chromium like the Stryker LFIT V40 femoral head and intended to interface directly with a metal acetabular cup and liner.

The corrosive process reportedly led to the shedding of metal byproducts into the bloodstream and metal debris into the tissues surrounding the replaced joint. Patients reported severe pain, inflammation, lack of ability to move the joint correctly, and infections.

In some cases, the debris led to the development of pseudotumors in the area, dislocation, fracturing, and some tissue death.

These complaints often became so numerous and prohibitive to the enjoyment of life that patients had no choice but to have the implants removed and replaced in hip revision surgery.

When revision surgery is done, as was the case with James, the patient assumes the risk of having problems with the adherence of a subsequent prosthetic due to bone loss and leg length discrepancies. He or she may also suffer grave financial setbacks for the medical care and hospitalization involved.

James in the Stryker LFIT hip lawsuit brings 13 causes of action against the defendant including but not limited to negligence, defective design, failure to warn, breach of implied warranties and negligent misrepresentation.

He is asking for compensatory damages according to evidence provided at trial and statutory damages. He also requests consideration for attorney’s and court fees.

The Stryker LFIT Hip Lawsuit is Case No. 1:18-cv-10480-IT in U.S. District Court, District of Massachusetts.