LinkedInXFacebook
Subscribe
Orthopedics This Week
  • My Feed
  • |Posts
  • |Events
  • |MSK Innovations
  • |Power Rankings
  • |Masterclasses
  • |Technology Awards
  • Press Releases
  • |Advertising
  • |Job Board
  • Spine
  • ◆Joints
  • ◆Upper Extremities
  • ◆Foot & Ankle
  • ◆Sports Medicine
  • ◆Pain Mgmt
  • ◆Trauma
  • ◆Biologics
  • ◆Technology
  • ◆People
  • ◆Company News
  • ◆Legal & Regulatory
Home/Company News/Stryker Settles Some Metal Hip Lawsuits
Company News

Stryker Settles Some Metal Hip Lawsuits

January 7, 2014 1 min read Premium comments

Advertisement

Stryker Settles Some Metal Hip Lawsuits
Image created by RRY Publications, LLC / Source: Wikimedia
Secondary

Johnson & Johnson’s DePuy division wasn’t the only device company settling metal-on-metal hip lawsuits at the end of 2013.

According to the New Jersey Record, four patients settled their claims against Stryker Corporation in New Jersey at the beginning of December. The patients alleged that the company’s Rejuvenate metal-on-metal hip injured them. Attorneys representing the patients would not disclose the financial terms, citing confidentiality agreements. But they told the newspaper that a deal came through after two weeks of mediation hearings.

J&J recently submitted a $2.5 billion-plus settlement offer to resolve 8, 000 lawsuits over its recalled ASR implants.

Stryker is already dealing with 600 metal hip lawsuits and thousands more are anticipated. The company voluntarily recalled the Rejuvenate implant in July 2012. More than 20, 000 patients across the country received the implant. The first of the lawsuits against Stryker was filed a month after the recall.

As of the third quarter of 2013, Stryker recorded $700 million in charges relating to the all-metal hip recall effort stemming mostly from expenses relating to the Rejuvenate and ABG II.

Biomet, Inc. is also dealing with its own onslaught of metal hip lawsuits. More than 900 Biomet lawsuits have been consolidated in U.S. District Court in Indiana and a status conference on those cases is scheduled for January 6, 2014.

React:

Discussion

14
DS
Dr. Sarah MitchellOrthopedic Surgeon · Mayo Clinic

This is a fascinating development. In my practice we've seen similar outcomes with the revised protocol. The key differentiator seems to be patient selection criteria. Has anyone else noticed the correlation with BMI thresholds?

8
JT
James Thornton, MDSpine Fellow · HSS

Great point. I'd push back slightly on the conclusion, the sample size in the cited study is too small to draw population-level inferences. That said, the directional signal is compelling and worth a larger RCT.

5
RP
R. PatelSports Medicine · Stanford

We implemented a similar approach last year. Early results are promising but we're still gathering 12-month follow-up data. Happy to share our protocol if anyone is interested.

Join the conversation

Orthopedic professionals are discussing this. Sign in and upgrade to read every comment and add your voice.

Subscribe

Get Full Access

Read every OTW article and join member discussions for $24.99/month.

Get Full Access

Advertisement

Advertisement

Advertisement

Orthopedics This Week

The most trusted source in orthopedic industry news since 2005. Covering spine, joints, trauma, biologics, and the business of orthopedics.

A publication of RRY Publications, LLC

LinkedInXFacebook

Categories

  • Spine
  • Joints
  • Upper Extremities
  • Foot & Ankle
  • Sports Medicine
  • Pain Mgmt
  • Trauma
  • Biologics
  • Technology
  • People
  • Company News
  • Legal & Regulatory

Resources

  • Subscribe
  • Community Posts
  • Job Board
  • Press Release Opportunities
  • Power Rankings
  • About OTW
  • Advertise
  • Contact Us

Get Full Access

Unlimited articles, community posts, and Power Rankings.

Get Full Access

Plans start at $24.99/mo · Annual saves 20%

© 2026 Orthopedics This Week · RRY Publications, LLC

Privacy PolicyTerms of ServiceCookie Policy