Man Injured by ‘Defective’ Stryker Hip Implant Sues for Damages

According to Musgrave’s hip implant lawsuit, the companies “developed, tested, assembled, manufactured, packaged, labeled, prepared, distributed, marketed, supplied, and/or sold a defective product under the name The Rejuvenate System” to hip replacement patients. The Stryker Rejuvenate was supposed to offer more stability than other hip implants on the market, but unlike the “monoblock systems” which feature one neck piece and a cup, Rejuvenate has a “modular system” with a chromium-cobalt neck and titanium stem. What the companies “failed to say was that the other end of the modular neck/head fit which fit into the metal stem was also metal” — a dangerous coupling.

The Problem with Metal-on-Metal Hip Implants

When metal meets metal in the body, it’s a recipe for disaster. It can cause “high mechanical stress particularly during bending of a patient, creating a serious risk of unintentional micro-motion, fretting, and corrosion,” Musgrave’s hip implant attorney states in the lawsuit. This leads to a high chance of metal components releasing into nearby tissues and the bloodstream. Metal-on-metal hip implants have been shown to corrode as far back as the 1980s.

Stryker’s Rejuvenate hip implant was not designated a metal-on-metal device (MoM), although it does have MoM parts — which means it didn’t have to go through the FDA’s pre-market approval process. Rejuvenate was approved in 2007 and changed to the cobalt-chromium combination in 2009. Musgrave claims that the companies “knew or should have known that their (metal) components in the Rejuvenate Modular Hip System would lead to metallosis and other complications, but failed to” opt for clinical testing.

Musgrave’s Hip Implant Problems

Musgrave says in the Stryker lawsuit that he had the Rejuvenate hip replacement system implanted on June 5, 2012, and all seemed well right after surgery. However, beginning that September, Musgrave began experiencing chronic left hip pain and became concerned about metal poisoning. He’s suing for injury, economic damages, physical and emotional pain and suffering, and the loss of ability to enjoy life. The Stryker hip implant lawsuit also includes claims of defective design, manufacturing defect, failure to warn, negligence, and misrepresentation.

Musgrave’s hip implant attorney says he will likely require an additional revision hip surgery to remedy the problems caused by the defective Rejuvenate hip system. Hip revision and replacement surgeries are often more challenging than original hip implants, since there’s less bone to work with. This will cost Musgrave even more in the form of continuing medical expenses, emotional distress and anxiety, his lawyer says in the complaint.

The Stryker Hip Implant Lawsuit is the Robert E. Musgrave v. Howmedica Osteonics Corp. and Stryker Corporation, Case No. 0:13-cv-01812-DWF-FLN, United States District Court Middle District of Florida Tampa Division.

The case was transferred to the District of Minnesota where the Stryker hip implant MDL (No. 2441) is located.

Did you receive a Stryker implant with metal-on-metal components and suffered unnecessary complications? You’re not alone and may qualify to seek compensation through a metal hip implant lawsuit settlement.

You can discover more at the Stryker Metal Hip Implant Recall Class Action Lawsuit Investigation. If you empathize with Musgrave, it’s your time to share your story. Submit your Stryker hip implant information, and an attorney will contact you for a free Stryker claim review if you qualify.