Stryker Recall Lawsuit Pretrial Order Appears to Void Original Surgery Deadline

Minneapolis, MNBack in April we mused about the various extensions of the deadline issued to prospective plaintiffs for the filing of a Stryker Orthopedics Rejuvenate Modular Hip System Recall lawsuit. Originally, prospective plaintiffs were given little time following the announcement of the ground-breaking settlement last fall to file their claims. Deadlines were extended - twice.

We wondered if they might be extended yet again.

Well, kinda, sorta. Originally, qualifying plaintiffs meeting the original deadline were required to have undergone corrective surgery on or before November 3, 2014. For those plaintiffs - having either suffered a failed implant or Stryker Orthopedics metallosis, which necessitated revision surgery to prevent any further metallosis toxicity - the windfall for pain, suffering and inconvenience could be worth $300,000 per implant.

The original deadline to file was December. Then it was extended to early March. Then it was extended to the end of March.

Now, the presiding judge overseeing multidistrict litigation (Stryker Rejuvenate and ABG II Hip Implant Products Liability Litigation, MDL No. 2441) has issued a pretrial order giving plaintiffs who have filed by the [most recent] deadline a total of 45 days in which to provide to the Court details of their revision surgery. Judge Donovan W. Frank of the US District Court, District of Minnesota, issued Pretrial Order No. 26 on April 17, starting the clock for qualifying plaintiffs having filed a Stryker recall lawsuit to submit details of their revision surgery.

Various pretrial orders have been issued since, such as those pertaining to revision surgeries that may have involved or occurred within the framework of Medicare and Medicaid. But it is Pretrial Order 26 that is the most interesting, because it appears to void the original revision surgery deadline of November 3, 2014.

“A plaintiff who undergoes revision surgery after filing his or her complaint shall file with the Court a ‘Notice of Revision Surgery’ form within 45 days of the surgery or entry of this Order, as applicable, setting forth the basic details of such surgery,” the order states. Given that the deadline to file a complaint was extended to the end of March, and the foregoing reference to revision surgeries that may have occurred after filing the complaint (in other words, surgery that occurred after March 30 of this year), it appears as if any hip replacement lawsuit plaintiff that filed by March 30 and underwent surgery after that date is still in the running, as it were.

That’s what Judge Frank’s Pretrial Order appears to suggest: the need for the Court to be apprised of recent surgeries that have occurred across the filing deadline extensions and beyond the expiry of the most recent deadline.

Some 5,000 lawsuits have been filed and populate the Stryker Orthopedics Rejuvenate Modular Hip System Recall MDL. The settlement, announced last fall, is worth $1.45 billion but could go higher once all costs are factored in.