Plaintiff Larry H. has filed a lawsuit in Arkansas federal court raising allegations that an implanted Stryker LFIT hip system caused severe adverse effects and complications.

Larry files the Stryker V40 lawsuit against manufacturers Stryker Orthopaedics and Howmedica Osteonics Corp.

According to the Stryker V40 lawsuit, the Stryker LFIT hip replacement system was defectively manufactured and caused him to suffer severe adverse effects, complications, and chronic injuries.

The Stryker V40 lawsuit alleges that in May 2016, Larry underwent a total hip arthroplasty and was implanted with the LFIT V40 Femoral Head. However, after the product’s implantation, he says he began to experience “progressive pain, hip dislocations and severe discomfort.”

In June 2016, Larry underwent revision surgery due to the failed Stryker LFIT hip system.

Larry is now raising claims including Negligence, Strict Liability-Failure to Warn, Strict Liability-Design Defect, and Breach of Express & Implied Warranties.

Stryker V40 Lawsuit Facts

The purpose of hip implants is to replace diseased and worn hip bones. Hip implants aid in restoring mobility, range of motion, and are used to relieve pain.

Metal-on-metal hip implants quickly gained popularity among younger orthopedic patients. Such companies as Stryker Ortopaedics and Howmedica Osteonics Corp. marketed these devices promoting benefits such as their permanence and durability.

However, these metal-on-metal hip implant devices have been linked to serious adverse effects such as an increased risk of fretting, corrosion, and heavy metal toxicity.

In addition, the Stryker V40 lawsuit alleges that due to the metal-on-metal ball and socket joint interaction within the implantation, metal ions may also be released into the bloodstream causing metallosis, or blood metal poisoning. This can increase other adverse effects including infection, the formation of pseudotumors, and tissue death of the surrounding area.

Very often, for patients to resolve these adverse effects and complications, they must undergo revision surgery. The alleged contention argued within the Stryker V40 lawsuit is that the defendant failed to adequately warn of these potential complications beforehand. They alleged that among other expressed warranties, they marketed that that product was safe and efficacious for intended use.

According to the Stryker V40 lawsuit, the “defendants failed to properly and adequately market the product and represented that the device would not fret or corrode in the human body. These representations were false and misleading to both surgeons and the consumers.”

The Stryker V40 lawsuit further asserts that the defendants failed to test the components that make up the LFIT V40 femoral head system with other metal component stems to confirm the products’ compatibility.

In August 2016, Stryker distributed an “Urgent Medical Device Recall Notification” letter to medical practitioners, or surgeons who were implanting patients with the Stryker V40 femoral head device manufactured before 2011. The recall notice stated that Stryker “had received higher than expected complaints describing incidences of harm secondary to taper lock failure for specific lots of LFIT V40 heads.”

The recall notice also listed potential hazards of the device, such as “dislocation of the femoral head from the hip stem,” fractured hip stem trunnions,” “excessive metallic debris” and “excessive wear debris.”

The Stryker V40 Lawsuit is Case No. 6:17-cv-06099-SOH, in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Arkansas.