By Gordon Gibb
Minneapolis, MN—Not every Stryker recall lawsuit is filed by a recipient, and not every Stryker injury is a physical injury suffered by a patient. To that end, a lawsuit filed against Stryker by an orthopedic surgeon and his practice claims injuries to the business amidst allegations of negligence, negligent misrepresentation and fraud on the part of Stryker.
We know this because the plaintiff balked at the thought of his lawsuit finding its way lumped into all the others in multidistrict litigation. According to court documents, the plaintiff opposed a transfer to the Stryker Rejuvenate MDL (In re: Stryker Rejuvenate and ABG II Hip Implant Products Liability Litigation No. 2441) on grounds that as a provider physician, his claims against Stryker and those of his practice are unique and thus, the Stryker Orthopedics Rejuvenate Modular Hip System Recall lawsuit should be allowed to stand on its own in the state of Texas, rather than transfer to Minnesota.
However, the judicial panel didn’t see it that way and ruled there is sufficient commonality in the Morgan lawsuit (Morgan, et al. v. Stryker Corporation, et al.,C.A. No. 2:15-198 in the Northern District of Texas) to warrant inclusion in the MDL and a transfer of the lawsuit to the District of Minnesota.
The Morgan hip replacement lawsuit references the safety of the recalled Stryker Rejuvenate hip implants and their propensity to generate excessive metal debris and metal ions, leading to Stryker Orthopedics metallosis – a highly toxic condition that requires revision surgery to remove the offending device lest the metallosis worsens and threatens the health and well-being of the patient.
