A particular set of hip implant components are the subject of a multidistrict litigation (MDL) for products liability now proceeding in a federal court in Massachusetts.

The plaintiffs in this Stryker LFIT V40 femoral head and Accolade TMZF lawsuit are a husband and wife who are both residents of the State of New Jersey.

Plaintiffs Elliot G. and Lisa G. are claiming damages from Howmedica Osteonics, a subsidiary of the Johnson & Johnson company and maker of these hip replacement prosthetic components.

Elliot G. alleges he was physically injured by bilateral implantation and unilateral removal of prosthetic components. Lisa G., his spouse, joins him in this Stryker LFIT V40 femoral head and Accolade TMZF lawsuit by claiming loss of consortium because of Elliot’s injuries.

According to the narrative in the Accolade TMZF lawsuit, Elliot was implanted with the hip replacement components first on the right side and then on the left side in surgeries during 2010 and  2011 respectively. The surgeries, spaced eight months apart, were performed at Valley Hospital in Ridgewood, N.J.

To date, the right prosthetic unit has not to-date been removed and replaced, according to the plaintiffs. The left prosthetic unit was removed in November 2017 at Valley Hospital where it was originally implanted. The revision was performed by the same orthopedic surgeon who performed the original implantation.

The plaintiffs are bringing the following counts against Howmedica Osteonics Corporation: Count One—Negligence; Count Three—Strict Products Liability, Defective Design; Count Four—Strict Products Liability, Manufacturing Defect; Count Five—Strict Products Liability, Failure to Warn; Count Six—Breach of Express Warranty; Count Seven—Breach of Warranty as to Merchantability; Count Eight—Breach of Implied Warranties; and Count Nine—Violation of Massachusetts Consumer Protection Act.

They are also bringing these additional counts against the manufacturers of these prosthetic components: Count Ten—Violation of Consumer Fraud and/or Deceptive Trade Practices under State Law; Count Eleven—Negligent Misrepresentation; Count Twelve—Loss of Consortium; Count Thirteen—Unjust Enrichment; and Count Fifteen—Punitive Damages.

The couple is asking for a trial by jury with a favorable decision on their behalf. They hope for compensatory damages according to all evidence provided at this trial that considers the personal injury and economic setbacks suffered. They hope for an award of all attorney’s fees as well as costs of litigation including court costs and miscellaneous related expenditures.

Elliot G. and Lisa G. additionally wish for restitution and disgorgement of all profits on their suffering by the company and prejudgment interest. Finally, they are asking for statutory damages as assessed by applicable state law in Massachusetts.

The Accolade TMZF Lawsuit is Case No. 1:17-cv-12320-IT, in the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts.