Plaintiff Carmen K. has filed a lawsuit in Massachusetts federal court against the manufacturers of the Stryker LFIT V40 hip implant, Howmedica Osteonics Corp.

According to the Stryker hip implant lawsuit, Carmen was implanted with the LFIT Anatomic CoCr V40 Femoral Head in her right hip on Jan. 7, 2008.  She had the surgery performed at St. Clare Hospital in Lakewood, Wash. There, she was also implanted with the defendant’s femoral stem medical device, the Accolade TMZF.

According to the Stryker hip implant lawsuit, she files damages stating that she suffered injury from the medical device and economic loss from the impact. “She was advised of the results of said blood-work and the fact that those blood work abnormalities were attributable to a defect in the device at issue,” the complaint says.

“[S]he could not have known that she was injured by excessive levels of chromium and cobalt until after the date she had her blood drawn…” The metallosis suffered, according to the Stryker hip implant lawsuit, is but one of the damages incurred.

Howmedica faces the following counts against them from the plaintiff: 1) Negligence; 2) Negligence Per Se; 3) Strict Products Liability- Defective Design; 4) Strict Products Liability- Manufacturing Defect; 5) Strict Products Liability- Failure to Warn; 6) Breach of Express Warranty; 7) Breach of Warranty as to Merchantability; 8) Breach of Implied Warranties; 9) Negligent Misrepresentation; and 10) Punitive Damages.

The plaintiff demands a trial by jury.

Stryker Hip Implant Lawsuit Joins MDL

Carmen’s claim is filed as part of a larger multidistrict litigation, or MDL, centered on allegations that the Stryker metal-on-metal hip implant device causes serious adverse effects and complications such as heavy metal toxicity, fretting, and corrosion.

The purpose and function of hip implants is to replace diminished and worsened hip bones and to improve range of motion and function of the hip.

Companies such as Howmedica Osteonics allegedly marketed and promoted their hip replacement devices as to their durability and permanence. These metal-on-metal hip implants quickly gained popularity, particularly among younger patients needing hip replacements who selected implantation with the metal-on-metal device.

However, adverse effects and complications allegedly occur due to the interaction between the metal ball and metal socket joint.

Metal ions from the medical device rubbing become released and may settle into the patient’s bloodstream and soft tissue. The release of metal ions into a patient’s bloodstream can cause adverse effects including metallosis, pseudotumors, infection, and tissue death.

Many patients must undergo revision surgery to fix these complications and adverse effects suffered from the implantation of Howmedica’s metal-on-metal hip implant device.

The Stryker hip implant lawsuit along with the conjoined MDL assert that the defendant failed to sufficiently and adequately warn of the likelihood of such risks and complications beforehand.

Carmen’s Stryker Hip Implant Lawsuit is Case No. 1:17-cv-12077, in the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts. The Stryker Hip Implant MDL is In re: Stryker LFIT V40 Femoral Head Products Liability Litigation, MDL No. 17-md-2768-IT, in the same court.