Stryker Hip Class Action: Why Victims Should Seek Other Options

Stryker Hip Class Action: Why Victims Should Seek Other Options 2017-05-05T13:52:17+00:00

Over 300,000 Americans undergo total hip replacement surgery every year to alleviate pain and loss of mobility resulting from hip injuries and various types of arthritis. Artificial hip devices, typically made from ceramic, plastic, or metal components, are designed to last at least 15 years after implantation. But recently, many patients have been experiencing hip orthopedic failure within just 5 years of their initial hip replacement surgery.

Thousands Of Patients File Hip Failure Lawsuits

Forced to undergo invasive revision surgery after suffering pain and complications from displaced, prematurely worn-out, or broken hip devices, thousands of patients are now seeking legal action against major orthopedic companies such as Stryker Corp., manufacturer of the recently-recalled LFIT Anatomic CoCr V40 Femoral Head, a popular hip device component that orthopedic researchers have found to exhibit “catastrophic” failure. Plaintiffs accuse Stryker Corp. and other manufacturers of defective design and failing to properly warn the healthcare community of the possible risks of their widely-used hip implants.

surgeons performing hip revision

With so many new lawsuits arising over Stryker hip replacements, will we see a Stryker hip class action in the near future? Perhaps, but most experienced product liability lawyers would advise hip replacement failure victims against joining a class action, as filing an individual personal injury suit generally offers greater flexibility and better chances of adequate compensation.

What Is Class Action?

Class action is a type of group litigation that allows for many similar legal claims to be consolidated into one lawsuit. In a lawsuit that has been granted class action status, one or a few plaintiffs act as the “class representative(s),” and a set of criteria are established to define who is eligible to join the class action.  For example, a hip replacement class action might be limited to victims who:

  • Had hip replacement surgery during a defined time period
  • Received hip implants from particular manufacturer
  • Suffered certain types of injuries from failed hip devices

Usually only the lead or representative plaintiff(s) are actually listed by name in the lawsuit, but any individuals who meet the criteria are either automatically included as a “class member” unless they specifically opt out, or can easily join by contacting the lead plaintiff’s attorneys. You can learn more about the history of class action and how it works on the Cornell University Law School website.

Possible Drawbacks Of A Stryker Hip Class Action

You may have seen many print ads or TV commercials about class action lawsuits involving failed hip replacement systems. Victims are implored to seek compensation for their injuries by joining these class action suits. However, class action lawsuits generally do not offer the best chance for adequate compensation, especially for hip replacement patients who suffered severe injuries and considerable financial loss from a defective artificial hip.

No Control Over Your Legal Claim

When you join a class action, you entrust the outcome of your failed hip device complaint to the Class Representative(s) and their legal counsel, as they’re the only ones specifically named on the class action lawsuit and are responsible for making all the decisions for the Class. As a class member, the only way you can possibly influence the direction of the lawsuit is by contacting the Class Representative(s), but they’re under no obligation to take your concerns into consideration or even to respond to you.

This means, most likely, that you’ll have virtually no say in the important details that will greatly affect you, such how much compensation the class action asks for, nor will you be included in the decision of whether or not to accept any settlements the defendants might offer in exchange for resolving the case.

Lead Plaintiff May Not Represent You Well

Class action can result in sufficient compensation for all class members when the constituent legal claims are all very similar in nature and therefore can be easily represented by a single case. But we expect that failed hip arthroplasty litigation is likely too complicated to be adequately handled with class action, because victims have experienced such a wide range of injuries and loss from failed hip devices.

For example, a plaintiff who needed revision surgery for a failed hip implant but didn’t have many other complications would likely seek less compensation than someone who also suffered a host of additional long-term side effects from a defective hip device.

With such variation in cases, it’s easy to see how a class representative might make decisions that serve his or her own best interests, but may not necessarily lead to optical outcomes for the rest of the class members.

Class Members May Receive Little Or No Compensation

In class action, the lead plaintiff is given the largest share out of any damages awarded in the case, and then the rest is split up between the remaining class members according to a court decision. So even when considerable financial relief is secured in a settlement or court verdict, it’s common for many class members to be allocated only a small amount of compensation. Some class action litigants end up receiving no compensation at all.

Signing Your Rights Away

Another potential disadvantage of class action for hip replacement plaintiffs is that participating in a hip replacement class action typically requires you to waive your right to initiate any additional legal action regarding your hip device injuries. This means that even if you ended up being dissatisfied with compensation you received (or lack thereof) in a class action, you wouldn’t be able to file your own lawsuit to try for a better outcome–you’d no longer have the legal right to do so.

man signing class action document

What About Individual Lawsuits?

These downsides of class action make filing an individual personal injury lawsuit a much better option for most patients who suffered considerable loss and injury from defective hip devices.  

When you file an individual lawsuit, you and your lawyer retain control over the formulation and direction of your legal claim throughout the filing process as well as through settlement negotiations or trial proceedings.  

MDL Streamlines Legal Processing

However, in situations where many similar individual lawsuits are filed across the nation in the same time period, judges may decide to cut down the strain on the court system by handling groups of lawsuits via Multi-District Litigation (MDL).  

In MDL, similar lawsuits from separate district courts are consolidated for pre-trial – that is, handled together in a single district court for any necessary procedures that need to be performed before the cases can proceed to trial.  These include discovery, the process through which plaintiffs and defendants gather information from one another to later use in court.

MDL Speeds Up Pre-trial

Having a large number of cases overseen by one judge rather than a number of judges in individual state courts can make processing considerably more efficient, especially for complex litigations like hip replacement failure.

For instance, expert witnesses such as leading hip arthroplasty researchers that might be called upon by the plaintiffs or defendants would only need to make a presentation for one judge, rather than having to travel to different states to make separate presentations for each case.

MDL Facilitates Consistent Rulings

Another potential advantage of handling cases via MDL is a greater chance that the assigned judge will treat the various cases fairly and consistently across the MDL. It’s easy to see how one judge, who becomes thoroughly versed in the common background shared by all the cases before making decisions, might be more likely to handle a large group of cases consistently than a number of judges who must handle cases separately, without the benefit of reviewing the pre-trial materials of similar cases from other states.

Differences Between MDL and Class Action

Like class action, MDL is a type of group litigation, but it proceeds very differently and doesn’t share the typical disadvantages of class action.

  • Every lawsuit in an MDL remains a separate case. Lawsuits in an MDL are handled together for pre-trial, but afterwards, each suit will either be “remanded” (sent back to the district court in which it was originally filed) to proceed to trial, or settled individually with the defendants. This is advantageous because plaintiffs retain full control over their cases and can decide for themselves, for instance, if they want to enter settlement negotiations or go to trial, should these options be available.
  • Plaintiffs are aware they’re included in an MDL.  Nowadays, most class action lawsuits automatically include any individuals who fit the class action requirements and didn’t didn’t ask to opt out. But MDLs are typically formed through a petition, initiated either by the plaintiffs or defendants, and must be approved by the Judicial Panel on Multi-District Litigation in order to reach official MDL status. Though the Panel may decide to include additional lawsuits that weren’t included in the original petition on grounds of similarity and convenience, plaintiffs will always be notified of their inclusion in an MDL.
  • In MDL, each plaintiff receives the full compensation amount. Unlike in class action, where court awards and settlements are divided up among class action members, compensation for lawsuits consolidated by MDL is awarded individually.
  • Compensation for MDL cases tends to be higher.  Settlements and damages won in court for class action lawsuits are often relatively small, and may not even be monetary in nature. For example, it’s common for class action members to merely receive replacement parts or repair services rather than proper compensation for injuries or other unnecessary harm caused by defective products.

The legal community anticipates that the growing number of Stryker hip replacement lawsuits filed by victims over recalled” Stryker V40 Femoral heads will eventually be consolidated by MDL, just like the thousands of lawsuits that arose after Stryker recalled its Rejuvenate and ABG II Modular Hip Systems in 2012.

Will Stryker Agree To Settlements?

Settlements for lawsuits involving the recalled V40 Femoral Head models seem to be a definite possibility, especially since Stryker has chosen to settle modular hip lawsuits in the recent past.

In 2014, the manufacturer decided to create a global settlement fund in order to resolve the staggering list of lawsuits it faced over its allegedly “defective” modular hip products, as well as any future complaints from patients who underwent revision surgery for recalled Stryker artificial hip components  before November 3, 2014.

According to the terms of the settlement, victims were offered $300,000 as a base amount of compensation, which could be increased depending on factors such as the age of the patient, total number of revision surgeries needed, types of complications experienced (such as infections, joint dislocations, strokes, and heart attacks) and the patient’s prior health status (for example, nonsmokers get more compensation).

Further Stryker Hip Replacement Reading