Stryker Rejuvenate Hip Class Action Lawsuit-Like Consolidation

Austin Kirk

By Austin Kirk
Posted June 28, 2013


An order was issued earlier this month by the U.S. Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation, consolidating all Stryker Rejuvenate lawsuits pending throughout the federal court system before one judge in the U.S. District Court for the District of Minnesota. The cases have been consolidated as part of an MDL, or “Multi-District Litigation”, which is often confused with a Stryker Rejuvenate hip class action. However, there are important differences for individuals to understand.

Although the federal courts have centralized the Stryker Rejuvenate litigation for coordination during pretrial proceedings, each lawsuit remains an individual case.

During the MDL proceedings, coordination will help reduce duplicative discovery, avoid conflicting rulings from different judges and serve the convenience of the witnesses, parties and the courts. However, if a Stryker Rejuvenate settlement agreement is not reached following pretrial proceedings, each case could ultimately go before a separate jury for trial.

Stryker Rejuvenate Class Action Lawyers

Find Out If You Qualify for a Stryker Rejuvenate Class Action?


There are currently only about four dozen complaints filed in different U.S. District Courts that will be consolidated into the MDL. However, as Stryker Rejuvenate hip class action lawyers continue to review and file additional cases in the federal court system, they will also be transferred to the MDL.

All of the claims involve similar allegations, that individuals experienced problems with Stryker Rejuvenate or ABG II modular hip stems, which were recalled last year amid reports of higher-than-expected failure rates.

These implants involve modular neck-stems, which feature two parts that fit inside each other to allow the surgeon to customize the length of the femoral component. However, as the metal parts rub against each other during normal use, microscopic metal debris may be released into the body, increasing the risk of the hip replacement loosening and failing.

Stryker Rejuvenate MDL vs Class Action

In addition to the federal Stryker Rejuvenate hip MDL, similar consolidated proceedings have been established for more than 100 cases filed in New Jersey state court, which is where the manufacturer is headquartered. However, unlike a class action lawsuit for Stryker Rejuvenate, each case remains an individual claim where the plaintiff must establish that their injuries were caused by the defective design of Stryker Rejuvenate or ABG II hip.

While a Stryker class action would proceed through a class representative, the individual circumstances of each case will vary in this litigation, because a hip replacement failure will impact each plaintiff differently. Therefore, these remain individual lawsuits and are not considered a class action.

About 30,000 Stryker Rejuvenate hips were sold before the device was recalled from the market. However, many patients are just now learning that their problems may be related to the recalled components. Therefore, the size and scope of the litigation is expected to continue to increase dramatically over the coming months and years.

The product liability lawyers at Saiontz & Kirk, P.A. are providing free consultations and claim evaluations for individuals who suspect that they may be experiencing problems from a recalled Stryker Rejuvenate or ABG II hip replacement. All cases are reviewed on a contingency fee basis, which means that there are no fees or expenses unless a recovery is obtained for your Stryker Rejuvenate injury.

To review a lawsuit for yourself, a friend or family member, request a free consultation and claim evaluation.

No Comments • Add Your Comments

Add Your Comments

  • Have Your Comments Reviewed by a Lawyer

    Provide contact information below and additional private comments if you want an attorney to contact you to review a potential case.

    The information below will not be published to this page.

  • NOTE: Providing information for review by an attorney does not form an attorney-client relationship.

  • This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.