There has been a recent Stryker LFIT lawsuit update in federal court. The pretrial procedures for these lawsuits have been centralized in federal court in a process called multidistrict litigation (MDL), specifically MDL 2768 In re: Stryker LFIT V40 Femoral Head Products Liability Litigation. The defendant for these cases is HowmedicaOsteonics Corp. (HOC).
This is not a class action lawsuit, which is a consolidation of all cases into one case. With MDL there are many cases, not just one, and only centralization involves procedures that happen before a trial, like gathering evidence. This is done for convenience so that the same procedures do not need to be done many, many times.
If you have a LFIT V40 hip implant or had one removed (revision surgery), you may have a case. You can contact our law firm for a free consultation if you have questions and need a lawyer. Fred Pritzker and David Szerlag are our lead attorneys for these cases.
Lawsuits Allege Defects in Stryker LFIT V40 Femoral Head Hip Implants
These cases concern alleged defects in Stryker-branded LFIT Anatomic CoCR V40 femoral heads, a prosthetic hip replacement device that causes:
- release of excessive metal debris into surrounding tissue;
- disassociation of the head from the stem (failure of the hip replacement device);
- trunnion fracture; and/or
- corrosion at the femoral head and stem junction.
The court order creating MDL 2768 stated:
“Plaintiffs’ claims focus on the performance of the LFIT V40 cobalt-chromium device, in particular the alleged propensity of the device to cause corrosion at the taper junction when paired with femoral stems made from different alloys (such as HOC’s proprietary TMZF, which is an alloy of titanium, molybdenum, zirconium and iron). This corrosion allegedly leads to failure of the implant or other serious health consequences and necessitates surgery to remove and replace the implants.”
Common Questions of Fact in MDL 2768
The cases were centralized in federal court with MDL 2768 for the following reasons:
- The lawsuits involve common questions of fact;
- The MDL will be an efficient way to litigate the cases;
- Centralization in the District of Massachusetts is a convenient location for the centralized proceedings;
- Centralization is consistent with past decisions in other similar hip implant cases, including the following: MDL No. 2441 – In re: Stryker Rejuvenate and ABG II Hip Implant Products Liability Litigation; MDL No. 2391 – In re: Biomet M2a Magnum Hip Implant Prods. Liab. Litig.
Some of the common issues of fact, according to the judge that decided the case, were the following:
- “the specific causes of the failure of each plaintiff’s device”; and
- “numerous common issues concerning the development, manufacture, testing, regulatory history, promotion, and labeling of the LFIT V40 cobalt-chromium femoral head.”
The MDL can include claims involving recalled and non-recalled LFIT V40 devices because the patients suing allege “all LFIT V40 devices are substantially similar (whether recalled or not) and experience similar problems.”
Find Out if You Have a Lawsuit and Can Sue for Compensation
You can find out if you can sue the company for compensation by contacting our law firm using our free consultation form or by calling 1-888-377-8900 (toll-free). Ask to talk with Fred or David. It is an absolutely free, no-obligation consultation. If you hire our law firm, we are not paid unless you win.
- Stryker Recall: LFIT Anatomic CoCr V40 Femoral Head
- Can I Be Part of a Class Action Lawsuit against Stryer?
These devices were sold nationwide: Alabama, Arizona, California, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Florida, Georgia, Iowa, Illinois, Indiana, Kansas, Louisiana, Massachusetts, Maryland, Maine, Michigan, Minnesota, North Carolina, North Dakota, Nebraska, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New York, Ohio, Oklahoma, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, Utah, Virginia, Washington, West Virginia, Wyoming.