Stryker Hip Replacement Lawsuit Settlement

Stryker has been involved in multiple mass settlements concerning its hip replacement devices. The company has been sued many times by individuals complaining of pain and damages post-surgery to replace their own hip components with a Stryker device.

Most lawsuits against Stryker have been consolidated into multidistrict lawsuits. These MDLs have resulted in successful settlements against Stryker.

MDLs have implicated three different hip replacement devices made by Stryker – the Rejuvenate, ABG II and the LFIT V40 Femoral Head replacement devices. In 2014, Stryker paid billions of dollars to settle lawsuits against its Rejuvenate and ABG II models.

In 2018, Stryker settled an additional MDL against its LFIT V40 device for an undisclosed amount. As of March 2023, hundreds of additional Stryker hip replacement lawsuits were pending due to damages caused by all three of these devices. These remain unresolved.

LFIT V40 Femoral Head Settlement

In 2016, Stryker recalled more than 40,000 LFIT V40 Femoral Head hip replacement devices due to thousands of complaints. Plaintiffs from multiple districts across the U.S. experienced metallosis caused by a high level of metal released into the blood by the erosion of the material of the hip replacement devices.

Metallosis can cause damage to surrounding tissue resulting in severe pain and limited mobility. Some claimants also experienced loosening of the devices, and many had to undergo painful revision surgery for a new hip replacement device.

In 2018, Stryker came to an initial settlement agreement for cases against that specific head hip replacement device. However, the settlement amount has not been disclosed. Hundreds of trials are upcoming from claimants dissatisfied with the settlement.

Rejuvenate and ABG II Settlement

Stryker voluntarily recalled its Rejuvenate and ABG II hip replacement devices in 2012. Since that recall, Stryker has settled thousands of lawsuits claiming the devices caused damage and pain at the surgery site.

In 2015, Stryker reached an MDL settlement agreement of more than $1 billion covering claims against the devices in 39 states. The vast majority, 95% of eligible claimants, who had revision surgery before Nov. 3, 2014, agreed to this settlement.

In December 2016, a new Stryker hip replacement device settlement was reached. At least 95% of those claimants received revision surgery before December 2016 but after November 2014. Public records haven’t disclosed the exact amount of this settlement.

Individuals eligible for the Stryker Rejuvenate and ABG II settlements experienced dangerous complications from hip replacement surgery with these devices, including metallosis and loosening of the devices. Many also had to undergo revision surgery for a new hip replacement device.

There have been multiple settlements against Stryker regarding the hip replacement devices Rejuvenate, ABG II and LFIT V40, and many individual trial proceedings are still ongoing. Two separate MDL settlements have been successful against the Stryker hip replacement devices Rejuvenate and ABG II.

In 2015, Stryker reached a $1.4 billion agreement to settle thousands of cases against these devices. This settlement applied to those claimants who initially received either of the devices, but due to complications required revision surgery before Nov. 3, 2014. Ultimately, 95% of claimants agreed to the settlement amount.

In 2016, Stryker extended the previous settlement to include claimants who had received either the Rejuvenate or ABG II devices but then required revision surgery between November 2014 and December 2016. The exact amount of this settlement is undisclosed, but between the two mass settlements, Stryker has paid between $2.2 and $2.4 billion.

Each claimant received an average of $600,000 per hip replacement device of concern. Currently, almost 100 court trials are pending against Stryker for complications surrounding these devices from plaintiffs who did not join or did not agree to either settlement.

In 2018, Stryker reached a confidential settlement with more plaintiffs who claimed they experienced pain and damages due to the implantation of a different hip replacement device, the LFIT V40. As of March 2023, almost 300 cases were pending in court from individuals who have chosen to sue Stryker separate from the MDL.

The three mass settlements against Stryker have been closed. However, hundreds of people who received the hip replacement devices Rejuvenate, ABG II or the LFIT V40 did not agree to join the Stryker hip replacement settlements. Instead, they have taken the company to court in separate trials.

Although these people did not join the settlements, they have been able to open separate proceedings against the company. There are currently hundreds of individual cases pending against Stryker regarding the Rejuvenate, ABG II and LFIT V40 models of hip replacement devices.

Those wishing to start proceedings are advised to contact an experienced attorney to determine whether they can initiate separate trial proceedings against Stryker.

As of March 2023, there were almost 300 cases pending in the U.S. against the Stryker LFIT V40 hip device. In addition, almost 100 cases were pending to address complications from the Rejuvenate or ABG II devices. Separate trial proceedings will likely determine these cases individually, although a new mass settlement is possible.

Stryker may also enter into settlement conferences prior to individual trials. Settlement conferences may enable a good outcome for each party because the defendant can offer a certain amount of money, and the plaintiff can accept without beginning trial proceedings. This route may be less expensive for both parties, but there is always a chance the plaintiff could receive more money from a trial verdict.

Individuals in similar situations who have chosen not to join a mass settlement but instead have begun separate trial proceedings, such as those involving the Biomet hip replacement devices, have received payouts in the millions of dollars.

Stryker may initiate another mass settlement when individual pending cases reach many hundreds or thousands. However, plaintiffs who are part of a mass settlement waive the right to initiate further legal proceedings against Stryker.