Sara B., a Mississippi resident, recently filed a hip implant lawsuit against Stryker Corporation for injuries sustained after receiving a Stryker Rejuvenate hip replacement product. Multiple hip implant lawsuits have been filed against Stryker Corporation for violations of consumer protection laws in various states across the nation.

According to the Stryker hip implant lawsuit, Sara received a Rejuvenate Modular hip implant in her left hip on June 9, 2010. Four years later in October 2014, Sarah had to undergo a revision surgery due to pain allegedly related to her hip replacement product. According to the hip implant lawsuit, she had been injured by excessive levels of chromium and cobalt leaking into her body from the Rejuvenate hip implant and required hip revision surgery to stop these Stryker hip implant injuries from worsening.

Because of her metal-on-metal hip replacement injuries, Sara is seeking compensatory and statutory damages. Her Rejuvenate Modular hip implant lawsuit brings claims against Stryker Corporation for negligence, strict product liability, design defect, breach of warranty, misrepresentation, and violation of consumer fraud laws.

Side effects associated with metal-on-metal hip replacements like the rejuvenate modular hip implant include implant failure requiring replacement, leaking of toxic substances into the bloodstream, cancer, degenerative heart disease, loss of bone strength, tissue death surrounding the implant, and metal poisoning. These dangerous hip implant side effects have been known to occur in metal-on-metal hip replacements manufactured by Johnson & Johnson, Biomet, DePuy, Wright Medical Technology, and Stryker. Currently, thousands of hip implant lawsuits have been filed against various hip replacement manufacturers like Stryker and many more will likely occur in the near future. Millions of dollars in settlements have already been paid to metal hip implant victims by many of the manufacturers noted above.

Overview of Multidistrict Litigation

Multidistrict litigation (MDL) is a procedure used by the federal court system to transfer factually similar cases to one federal tribunal within the United States. While under the supervision of a single tribunal, many pretrial decisions are made as to how the cases filed under the MDL will proceed. This creates efficiency and maintains consistency among the different cases. These MDL proceedings also help all parties involved save both time and money.

In the case referenced above, the plaintiff requested that her Stryker Rejuvenate hip implant case be transferred back to the Southern District of Mississippi once the pretrial/multidistrict litigation was complete. As a resident of Mississippi, the plaintiff would have filed her lawsuit there, but court order initiating the multidistrict litigation proceedings required her hip implant lawsuit to be consolidated with the rest against Stryker Corp.

Across the United States, victims of Stryker Corporation’s allegedly faulty hip implants are filing lawsuits in federal court. Plaintiffs in these hip implant lawsuits are usually patients directly injured by their metal-on-metal implant or family members of loved ones who have recently passed. In some hip implant lawsuits, spouses of victims may join as co-plaintiffs in hopes of receiving a larger settlement or award. As co-plaintiffs, spouses can bring a loss of consortium claim, also known as a loss of spousal intimacy claim. Awards and settlements from these hip replacement lawsuits will hopefully help victims pay for medical bills they have accumulated due to the hip implant complications they have suffered. While monetary compensation cannot necessarily give patients back the lifestyles they may have lost due to their injuries, it is a step in the right direction.

The Stryker Rejuvenate Hip Implant Lawsuit is Case No. 0:15-cv-DWF-FLN, in the U.S. District Court for the District of Minnesota.