Nearly one year ago, Stryker voluntarily recalled its Rejuvenate Modular Hip System and ABG II Modular-Hip Neck Stem from the market after various medical problems in recipients of the product were attributed to the design of the hip prosthetic. In particular, the
design of the hips have metal-on-metal connection point between the ball and stem of the products which has been associated with complications seen in other metal-on-metal hips like the DePuy ASR.
My friend, colleague and esteemed medical device recall attorney Jonathan Rosenfeld is one of the leading attorneys around the country who is litigating these complex cases. Recently, I asked Jonathan for an update on this litigation as quite a bit has occurred over the past year in relation to these cases.
Analysis Of Stryker Rejuvenate Recall From Hip Defect Lawyers fro Rosenfeld Injury Lawyers
Q: What types of problems are patients with the Stryker
Rejuvenate and ABG II Modular Hip experiencing?
A: At some point after the patients receive these hip replacement devices, many patients have noticed:
- Pain in the hip area around the
joint - Fatigue
- Squeaking noises
- Dislocation of the hip prosthesis
- Difficulty with certain basic movements
- Redness, rash or other irritations around the artificial hip
Q: What is the cause of the complications with the recalled Stryker Rejuvenate and ABG II hips?
A: The medical community is still closely studying the design and materials used in the manufacture of the defective Stryker hips. Nonetheless, the focus of the investigation and the assumed culprit for the complications is the actual junction in the ball and socket of the hip where there are two metal parts that connect to keep the hip in place. After some time after the joint has been positioned in the body, the inherent stress put upon the joint under normal conditions has been shown to result in ‘corrosion’ and ‘fretting’ where pieces of the metal actually break off and become embedded in the body.
In addition to the physical discomfort associated with the metal fragments becoming embedded in the tissue surrounding the hip implant, the fretting has also been associated with metal poisoning or metallosis where the metals used in the manufacture of the device actually get absorbed into the body and blood stream. As a result of the pain and elevated heavy metal levels in the blood, many people who received Stryker Rejuvenate hips will required a revision surgery where the prosthesis is removed and replaced with new one.
Q: Does someone need to have active symptoms with their Stryker hip in order to have a legal claim for compensation?
A: Many of the pending Stryker Rejuvenate lawsuits involve patients who have have verified medical complications that have been attributed to these recalled devices. However, there are many patients who have received these Stryker hip implants and are unsure of what their legal rights are. Given, that the time period for initiating a legal claim or statute of limitations can be interpreted according to different interpretations, it is important that all people with a Stryker Rejuvenate Modular Hip System or the Stryker ABG II Modular-Neck Hip Stem talk with a law firm to ensure that their rights are not compromised at a later date should they develop complications or require care in the future. The truth is that even if you are not experiencing symptoms related to a failure,
does not mean that your body is not being harmed.
Q: What type of legal recourse does a patient with a recalled Stryker hip have?
A: A patient who has received Stryker Rejuvenate or ABG II hip may pursue a lawsuit against the manufacturer to recover compensation for their past and future: pain, disability, lost wages and medical expenses.
Presently, patients have filed individual lawsuits in different jurisdictions across the country. The bulk of the pending Stryker Rejuvenate lawsuits are pending in Bergen County, NJ close to where Stryker is headquartered. The pending cases are being consolidated before an individual judge who will help streamline the litigation
process.
There is a good chance that the Stryker litigation may take a page from the well-known DePuy ASR litigation where the courts have consolidated the cases in what is referred to as an MDL (Multi District Litigation) where cases are consolidated for discovery purposes, yet kept independent for trial.
Q: It sounds like there may be a long road for people with recalled Stryker hips in order for them to recover compensation?
A: At this point we are really in the initial phase of Stryker Rejuvenate and ABG II hip litigation. There are many variables that will impact how these cases proceed over the
coming months. At this point, it is clear that the interests of Stryker and the individuals impacted by these devices are adverse. I tell my clients that we’re going to ‘prepare for war and hope for peace’. Hopefully, when more information is disclosed about the companies
knowledge of these hip replacement devices comes to light in conjunction with the significance of these injuries, there may be genuine effort to resolve these cases. But honestly, we can not say with certainty how these cases will play out.
For the latest information on the Stryker Rejuvenate and ABG II litigation, take a look at the website sponsored by Rosenfeld’s law firm www.strykerhipfaq.com.
Resources:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metallosis
http://www.fda.gov/safety/recalls/ucm311043.htm
www.judiciary.state.nj.us/mass-tort/abgstryker/initial-cmo.pdf