The Stryker metal hip implant multidistrict litigation prepares for its upcoming status conference. The conference is scheduled to take place in New Jersey’s Bergen County Superior Court on Jan. 20, 2015.

This status conference will discuss different matters pertaining to the Stryker Rejuvenate and ABG II metal hip implant lawsuits, focusing on the complications patients suffered. Both of these products are metal-on-metal hip implants, which were advertised to be safe, effective, and superior options for hip replacement.

Each of these plaintiffs who filed metal-on-metal hip implant lawsuits had received these implants before they were recalled from the market on July 6, 2012, after the companies had received numerous injury reports including extreme pain and device failure.

The court had given a previous update on Nov. 18, 2014, when it was reported that at least 2,160 Stryker metal hip implant lawsuits had been filed in the Bergen County court.

Several weeks earlier, the court announced a hip implant settlement that would have affected thousands of Rejuvenate and ABG II lawsuits that had been filed throughout the federal and state courts. This settlement was officially announced on Nov. 3, 2014 and stated that plaintiffs could receive a base reward up to $300,000 per failed hip implant.

According to the terms of the hip implant settlement, Stryker can possibility seek base reductions and plaintiffs could also seek enhancement, based on the circumstances of the case. The court also declared that Stryker claimants who required revision surgery, but were unable to go through with it due to medical conditions, may also be eligible for payment.

Currently, all of the metal hip lawsuits in Bergen County were filed after the 2012 Stryker hip implant recall. A separate multidistrict litigation (MDL) had been centralized in a Minnesota federal court and is going through its own litigation system.

According to a Dec. 15, 2014 status update, there were approximately 2,240 metal hip lawsuits that were filed. These hip implant lawsuits allege similar claims of injury and device failure, and that the company failed to protect the plaintiffs.

The Stryker Metal Hip Implant MDL is In Re: Stryker Rejuvenate Hip Stem and the ABG II Modular Hip Stem Litigation, MDL No. 296, in New Jersey’s Bergen County Superior Court.

Overview of Metal-on-Metal Hip Complications

When metal-on-metal hip implants were originally conceived, they were thought to be overtly superior in performance and durability compared to their plastic or ceramic cousins.

These implants were highly popular among younger patients because they could customize to fit a patient’s specific frame, and could take more strenuous physical activity. However, soon after they were released, it was discovered that the hip implants allegedly came with major design defects that many experts claim stem from the products’ hasty approval.

Almost all metal hip implants in the United States were approved through the U.S. Food and Drug Administration’s 510(k) policy, which essentially allows a product to be released into the market without pre-clinical trials. As long as a product proves to work at least on an equivalent level with a released product that is similar, it is eligible for the FDA’s policy.

While it was a convenient protocol for the metal hip manufacturing companies who capitalized on the metal hip implant movement, like Stryker and DePuy, it arguably became the companies’ undoing.

Due to the fact that there was insufficient data available, physicians and surgeons were unaware of all the possible side effects that came with metal-on-metal hip implants.

For example metallosis, or blood-metal poisoning, occurred when the ball-and-socket joints of the device interacted and shed metal fragments into the patients’ bloodstream. This caused a variety of complications including: device failure, infection, corrosion, fretting, and the formation of pseudotumors.

The patients injured by these and other side effects state that they were not adequately warned about any adverse effects, and that their surgeon had not been given proper instruction.

As indicated above, thousands of patients are continuing to file metal hip implant lawsuits against metal hip implant companies across America, alleging gross negligence and concealing vital safety information.