Global Settlement Reached in Stryker Hip Implant Litigation (MDL 2441)
Yahoo! News reports that a global settlement has been reached in the litigation involving Stryker’s Rejuvenate and ABG II modular hip implants. Stryker has agreed to provide a base payment of $300,000 to patients who received the Stryker implants at issue and underwent revision surgery to remove and/or replace the devices before or by November 3, 2014. The agreement also provides for additional compensation for plaintiffs who suffered complications during revision surgery and for other damages, including future surgeries caused by complications.
Plaintiffs’ Lead Counsel Committee has set forth key deadlines for the settlement program. All plaintiffs who want to be included in the settlement must register by December 14, 2014. Enrollment opens for base payment applications between January 15, 2015 and March 2, 2015, and the enrollment deadline for base payment applications is set for March 2, 2015. Claims processors will evaluate base payment enrollment packages between March-June 2015, and June 15, 2015 is the deadline for Stryker to exercise its “walk-away” rights. The enhancement benefit payment application process will open between June 15, 2015 and September 30, 2015, and enhancement award notifications will be sent and payments will begin to be made on a rolling basis in late 2015.
In June 2012, Stryker recalled its Rejuvenate and ABG II Modular-Neck Hip Stems based on the fact that the implants could cause adverse reactions to patients, including pain, swelling, metal poisoning and other adverse side effects. After a number of lawsuits were filed by injured individuals, the lawsuits were consolidated in MDL 2441 in the District of Minnesota (In re: Stryker Rejuvenate Hip Implants Products Liability Litigation, Case No. 13-md-2441, United States District Court for the District of Minnesota).
The choice of a lawyer is an important decision and should not be based solely on advertisements. The cases discussed do not predict outcomes in future cases. Past results afford no guarantee of future results and every case is different and must be judged on its own merits.