Couple Seeks $100M in Damages for Defective Stryker Hip Implant
By Jessica Tyner
Arthur Charleston and his wife Bertha Jackson Charleston are partners both in marriage and against Stryker Corp. and Howmedica Osteonics Corp., the makers of the Stryker ABG II hip implant. The couple are seeking $100 million in damages from the companies in a new Stryker hip implant lawsuit filed on June 17, 2013 in Illinois. They claim Arthur is another metal-on-metal hip implant victim who faced revision surgeries to repair the damage caused by the companies’ defective device.
The husband was a recipient of Stryker’s popular ABG II System, a metal-on-metal hip implant that was approved in 2009 by the U.S. Food & Drug Administration (FDA) without undergoing clinical trials. The makers of Stryker legally got away with this because the ABG II is similar to other products that had been approved after going through trials. However, the Charlestons’ hip implant lawsuit claims that the makers “had reason to believe those previously approved similar devices were subject to failure, including specifically corrosion and fretting.”
The unique material combination used in the ABG II and similar metal hip replacement systems has been shown to lead to corrosion since the 1980s. A voluntary recall was issued in June 2012.
Stryker Recall Too Late for Arthur
Like many hip implant victims, the recall came too late for Arthur, who received the ABG II from Dr. Stulberg in June 2010.
At first Arthur thought he was on the road to recovery, but soon after the “normal” pains from hip replacement surgery stopped, he experienced right hip pain. After a host of tests, elevated chromium levels were found in his blood — a tell-tale sign of metal hip poisoning.
The hip implant lawsuit says he received revision surgery on June 24, 2013, but it’s too soon to tell how successful it will be. However, doctors have stated that he’ll be permanently disabled with pain and limping.
Arthur and his wife are suing the metal hip implant makers for a number of illegal activities, including selling the device with “unreasonably increased the risk of injury,” failure to design the device safely, failure to exercise reasonable care to warn users of its dangerous condition, and failure to warn users of the risks of severe injuries. Product liability, breach of warranty, negligence and punitive damages are also being considered in the Stryker hip implant lawsuit.
The Hip Implant Complications
Hip implant revisions are painful and expensive, and Arthur will suffer for life. Bertha will also be affected by her husband’s suffering. The Charlestons are seeking $100 million in total for their physical, emotional and financial injuries. According to the hip implant lawsuit, Arthur “was greatly injured both internally and externally and became sick, lame and disabled.”
Due to the defective hip implant, Arthur “will suffer severe pain and anguish in body and mind.” He laments the fact that he is now obligated to spend exorbitant amounts of money to be cured.
The Stryker hip implant lawsuit is Arthur Charleston and Bertha Jackson Charleston v. Howmedica Osteonics Corporation d/b/a, Stryker Orthopaedics, et al., Case No. 0:13-cv-01818-DWF-FLM, in the United States District Court Northern District of Illinois.
Is Arthur’s Story Too Familiar?
Do you relate all too well to the Charlestons? Metal hip implants, or those with metal components, have been around for many years but the Stryker recall is only one year old. If you suffered like Arthur, you might have a Stryker hip implant legal claim. Read more by visiting the Stryker Metal Hip Implant Recall Class Action Lawsuit Investigation. Submit your information and get a free Stryker claim review from an attorney to determine if you qualify to file a Stryker hip implant lawsuit.
Updated July 19th, 2013
All medical device, dangerous drug and medical class action and lawsuit news updates are listed in the Drug and Medical Device section of Top Class Actions.
Top Class Actions Legal Statement
