Not All Stryker Recall Lawsuits Are Filed by Patients

Minneapolis, MNNot every Stryker recall lawsuit is filed by a recipient, and not every Stryker injury is a physical injury suffered by a patient. To that end, a lawsuit filed against Stryker by an orthopedic surgeon and his practice claims injuries to the business amidst allegations of negligence, negligent misrepresentation and fraud on the part of Stryker.

We know this because the plaintiff balked at the thought of his lawsuit finding its way lumped into all the others in multidistrict litigation. According to court documents, the plaintiff opposed a transfer to the Stryker Rejuvenate MDL (In re: Stryker Rejuvenate and ABG II Hip Implant Products Liability Litigation No. 2441) on grounds that as a provider physician, his claims against Stryker and those of his practice are unique and thus, the Stryker Orthopedics Rejuvenate Modular Hip System Recall lawsuit should be allowed to stand on its own in the state of Texas, rather than transfer to Minnesota.

However, the judicial panel didn’t see it that way and ruled there is sufficient commonality in the Morgan lawsuit (Morgan, et al. v. Stryker Corporation, et al., C.A. No. 2:15-198 in the Northern District of Texas) to warrant inclusion in the MDL and a transfer of the lawsuit to the District of Minnesota.

The Morgan hip replacement lawsuit references the safety of the recalled Stryker Rejuvenate hip implants and their propensity to generate excessive metal debris and metal ions, leading to Stryker Orthopedics metallosis - a highly toxic condition that requires revision surgery to remove the offending device lest the metallosis worsens and threatens the health and well-being of the patient.

The hip replacement lawsuit filed by the surgeon and his practice also referenced the killing of surrounding tissue and the premature failure of the device in his patients.

The judicial panel noted that such allegations are not unlike those already having been identified in the majority of lawsuits presently transferred to the MDL. What’s more, the judicial panel noted that the Morgan lawsuit is not the only non-recipient lawsuit in the MDL (Public Employees Local 71 Trust Fund v. Howmedica Osteonics Corp., C.A. No. 14-131, District of Alaska) that was transferred to the MDL in September of last year.

In the end, the judicial panel ruled there was sufficient commonality for the Morgan hip replacement lawsuit for inclusion in the MDL, and that its particular uniqueness was insufficient to defer the transfer.

In the last few years there has been a rash of hip replacement lawsuits following the premature failure of newer-generation devices fashioned from updated materials that have not performed to expectations. The majority of failed implants require revision surgery in order to replace the failed device and to stem associated problems such as tissue inflammation, tissue death and metallosis. This requires a patient to face a second and sometimes a third surgical procedure that can prove more complex and require longer healing times.

Stryker Orthopedics Rejuvenate Modular Hip System Recall lawsuits have been assigned to the Honorable Donovan W. Frank in the District of Minnesota.