Lawsuit Alleges Stryker Delayed Rejuvenate Hip Recall

A new hip replacement lawsuit has been filed over the recalled Stryker Rejuvenate modular neck component, alleging that the manufacturer dragged its feet in warning about the risk of early failure or removing the hip implant from the market. 

The complaint (PDF) was filed by Cheryl Riley in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida on December 6, naming Howmedica Osteonics Corporation, doing business as Stryker Orthopedics, as the defendant.

According to allegations raised in the Stryker Rejuvenate lawsuit, Riley underwent total hip arthroplasty on November 28, 2011, when she had the Rejuvenate modular femoral component implanted.

Riley indicates that the artificial hip quickly deteriorated, fretting and corroding at the modular neck junction. This allegedly resulted in severe hip pain and required Riley to undergo additional surgeries, ultimately requiring revision surgery to have the Stryker Rejuvenate hip removed.

Stryker Delayed Rejuvenate Hip Recall, Lawsuit Claims

The lawsuit accuses the medical device manufacturer of failing to promptly respond to reports and publications that suggested there was a problem with Stryker Rejuvenate modular neck stem hip components.

Howmedica introduced the Stryker Rejuvenate Modular Hip System in February 2009. Unlike traditional hip replacement systems, which involve a single femoral component, the Stryker modular hip system features a two-part neck and stem design, which allows the surgeon to customize the length to match the patient.

Although the hip replacements are expected to last 15 to 20 years, a Stryker hip recall was issued in July 2012, for the Rejuvenate and ABG II neck stems, less than a year after Riley received the implant. 

At the time the Stryker Rejuvenate hip was removed from the market, the manufacturer acknowledged that the design appears to increase the risk of fretting and corrosion at the modular neck junction, which may increase the risk of pain, swelling and failure of the artificial hip replacement.

Riley alleges that Stryker failed to implement the proper pre-marketing and post-marketing measures that would have led to the public being notified and warned in a timely manner, the lawsuit claims.

Growing Number of Lawsuits Filed Against Stryker Over Rejuvenate Hip Recall

Riley accuses Stryker of designing a defective product, failure to warn, negligence, breach of warranty, negligent misrepresentation, fraudulent deceit, and failing to establish good manufacturing practices.

The complaint seeks compensation for bodily injury, pain, suffering, disability, physical impairment, disfigurement, mental anguish, inconvenience, aggravation of a pre-existing condition, loss of capacity for the enjoyment of life, loss of past and future earnings, and past, present and future medical and nursing home care expenses.

A growing number of individuals throughout the United States have filed similar lawsuits after experiencing complications with the Stryker Rejuvenate component.

In October, a group of plaintiffs who have brought their cases in New Jersey state court, filed a request to centralize the Stryker Rejuvenate hip litigation as part of a “mass tort” or “multi-county litigation,” which would result in all cases pending throughout the state being assigned to one judge for coordinated handling.