For more information or confidential assistance
Call 800-306-3180

Stryker Rejuvenate Lawsuit Seeks $1 Million in Damages

Illinois plaintiff Gary L. Wolford is seeking more than $1 million dollars in damages from Striker Orthopaedics, based on allegations of permanent injuries from the defendant’s Rejuvenate hip replacement system. His Stryker hip recall lawyer filed the claim in U.S. District Court, Northern District of Illinois on May 10, 2013. The personal injury/product liability lawsuit labels the modular neck and stem components of the Stryker Rejuvenate implant as dangerous and defective in nature. The plaintiff hopes to recover compensatory and punitive damages for his related medical expenses, pain, suffering, and other losses.

Stryker Rejuvenate lawsuit charges defendants with negligence

After Wolford was diagnosed with osteoarthritis of the hip, he chose to undergo elective hip replacement surgery in February 2011, at which time he was implanted with the Stryker Rejuvenate Modular Hip System. The Rejuvenate is a modular hip device that was launched via the FDA’s controversial 510(k) clearance system, where a manufacturer can sell a new medical device as long as it’s proven substantially similar in design to a predicate product. In the case of the Rejuvenate hip implant, the predicate was the Wright “Pro Femur” modular system, a device associated with corrosion and adverse tissue reactions at the site of the modular interface.

Soon after the Stryker Rejuvenate was released in 2009, patients began complaining of swelling and unexplained pain in the hip joint. The symptoms in many of these cases were a result of the femoral stem, which is made of titanium alloy, fretting against the chrome cobalt acetebular cup. According to court documents, the surgeon who implanted Gary Wolford’s implant was also a paid Stryker consultant.

Dr. Wixson, the plaintiff’s orthopedic surgeon, received a letter on June 30, 2012, informing him that Stryker had initiated a voluntary Rejuvenate hip recall based on design defects that caused patients to suffer metal toxicity. Evidence showed that chrome and titanium ions were shedding into patients’ tissues as the components were prone to both fretting and corrosion. This particular defect has been linked to a host of complications including adverse tissue reactions, tissue necrosis, the formation of pseudo tumors and persistent pain and inflammation. Patients are also at risk for metallosis – a dangerous form of heavy metal blood poisoning.

Injured plaintiff demands damages for Stryker hip complications

Like others who have filed a Stryker Rejuvenate lawsuit based on serious injuries from the now recalled device, Wolford has taken his claims to court in an effort to recover compensation. He is asking Stryker to compensate for:

  • Severe physical pain and suffering
  • Emotional distress
  • Mental anguish
  • Loss of capacity for enjoyment of life
  • Medical and pharmaceutical expenses
  • Surgical costs
  • Lost wages
  • Loss of earning capacity

Rejuvenate system recalled due to defective design

The plaintiff’s Stryker hip recall lawyer says that the defendants had knowledge prior to marketing the Rejuvenate System that its proprietary titanium alloy performed poorly when combined with chrome cobalt components. Wolford’s attorney adopts multiple counts against Stryker including:

  • Negligence
  • Breach of Implied and Express warranty
  • Design defect
  • Strict Liability – failure to warn
  • Manufacturing defect
  • Punitive damages