Top Class Actions’s website and social media posts use affiliate links. If you make a purchase using such links, we may receive a commission, but it will not result in any additional charges to you. Please review our Affiliate Link Disclosure for more information.
New Stryker Hip Implant Lawsuit Filed in Louisiana
By Anne Bucher
On July 2, 2013, a new hip implant lawsuit was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana against Stryker Corporation, alleging that the company’s Rejuvenate hip system is defective and dangerous due to fretting and corrosion that is associated with the devices. The fretting and corrosion of the hip implants causes patients to suffer severe health consequences and frequently requires the patient to undergo risky revision surgery.
Plaintiff Experienced Serious Complications from Stryker Hip Implant
Plaintiff Janet Mayeux received Rejuvenate modular hip implant components during her hip replacement surgery on May 22, 2012. Less than two months later, Mayeux was informed that Stryker had issued a voluntary recall of its products due to the risk of corrosion and fretting associated with the Stryker Rejuvenate components. The fretting and corrosion at the Stryker hip implant site causes large amounts of toxic cobalt and chromium ions to be released into Mayeux’s tissue, bone and bloodstream, the lawsuit states.
After receiving the Stryker hip implant, Mayeux must be regularly monitored through blood tests, radiographic tests and other diagnostic tests. Further, she must undergo risky revision surgery because the device has not functioned as intended. As a result, she has been faced with mounting medical expenses that will likely continue to increase due to the dangers posed by the Stryker hip implant.
Mayeux claims in the Stryker hip implant lawsuit that has suffered from pain, soreness, swelling and decreased mobility. She also suffers from elevated levels of chromium and cobalt in her bloodstream.
Plaintiff Alleges Stryker Should Have Known of Rejuvenate System’s Dangers
Stryker obtained 510(k) approval from the U.S. Food & Drug Administration (FDA) because the company demonstrated that the Rejuvenate hip implant system was “substantially equivalent” to other devices that were already on the market. Under the 510(k) approval process, Stryker did not have to submit evidence of premarket safety testing.
In her Stryker hip implant lawsuit, Mayeux claims that Stryker should have known that the Rejuvenate System was associated with serious health complications and side effects. She claims that the company continued to promote and sell the hip implants without adequate warnings about the serious risks associated with them.
Mayeux claims in the hip implant lawsuit that, had she known about the large number of debilitating risks associated with the Rejuvenate modular hip system, she would not have chosen to have the device implanted. Because of the Stryker hip implant, Mayeux has suffered pain and suffering, emotional distress, loss of mobility, extensive medical bills and loss of her enjoyment of life. She is seeking damages for all of the losses she has incurred and will continue to incur as a result of the defective hip implant.
Mayeux is just one of hundreds of plaintiffs from all over the U.S. who have filed Rejuvenate hip implant lawsuits against Stryker. Many of these Stryker lawsuits have been consolidated in multicounty litigation in New Jersey.
Her Stryker Hip Implant Lawsuit case is Janet Mayeux v. Stryker Corp., et al., Case No. 13-cv-04973-JTM-KWR, U.S. District Court, Eastern District of Louisana.
If you or someone you care about experienced severe complications from a Stryker hip implant, you may be eligible to join the growing number of plaintiffs who have filed lawsuits against the Stryker Corporation. For a free case evaluation, submit information about your injuries on the Stryker Metal Hip Implant Recall Class Action Lawsuit Investigation page.
Updated July 12th, 2013
All medical device, dangerous drug and medical class action and lawsuit news updates are listed in the Drug and Medical Device section of Top Class Actions.
Top Class Actions Legal Statement
