A Stryker hip settlement has been achieved, resolving claims over components that patients alleged were defective. The Stryker hip settlement involves an agreement with those patients who had to undergo additional surgery to replace the components associated with their original hip implant.

The Stryker hip settlement was borne out of cases that were consolidated into multi-county litigation in New Jersey and multidistrict litigation in Massachusetts. Nearly 125 cases were involved in the Stryker hip settlement.

The Stryker hip settlement has to do with allegations that Stryker’s LFIT anatomic cobalt chromium V40 femoral heads were defective and caused unnecessary pain, problems, and required replacement surgery.

Another 140 related cases in the Stryker hip settlement were consolidated in New Jersey State Court. Many of the plaintiffs now entitled to possible recovery in the Stryker hip settlement say that the component used in the artificial hips was subject to two different recalls as a result of the defects.

Stryker Hip Defects

The hip defects, according to the plaintiffs in the Stryker hip settlement, cause issues such as difficulty walking, pain or tissue damage as the components caused corrosion. The corrosion of those hip replacements allegedly caused a need for further surgery, presenting its own unique recovery risks.

Many of the plaintiffs now entitled to recovery through the Stryker hip settlement had been involved in the litigation after receiving the Stryker hip components, learning of the Stryker recall and having to go through their own process of further surgeries and treatments in order to address the problems.

Many of these patients say that they did not receive accurate information about the dangers associated with the Stryker hip replacement problems until they were informed by their doctors that they had issues and had to undergo additional surgery.

Complications for Stryker Hip Patients

Stryker hip patients say that they should have been warned about the defects and dangers of the metal hip device prior to receiving the malfunctioning implant and that the company’s failure to disclose these risks and warnings put them in harm’s way unnecessarily and led to surgeries and associated risks.

Plenty of Stryker patients argue that neither they nor their doctors received appropriate information about the risks versus the benefits of the Stryker hip implant and, therefore, could not make an informed decision about whether or not the implant was appropriate for hip replacement.

These patients say that difficulty with mobility is what prompted them to receive hip replacement to begin with but that they never anticipated that their hip replacement device would do more harm than good.

Unfortunately, lawsuits over defective medical devices have increased in recent years. Patients who receive a medical device that causes unexplained symptoms and side effects sometimes have to get the device removed completely or have a replacement implanted.

In the Stryker hip lawsuit, patients complained that the company was aware of the failure rates and related problems but chose to hide these rather than disclose them or fix them such that the devices were safe and effective. Similar medical device lawsuits have targeted makers of devices when it comes to lack of warning.