Stryker Hip Lawsuit News: L-FIT V40 Femoral Head Plaintiffs Given More Time to Submit Fact Sheets

Published on January 25, 2018 by Sandy Liebhard

The federal court overseeing Stryker hip lawsuits involving allegedly defective L-FIT Anatomic CoCr V40 Femoral Heads has given claimant’s additional time to submit their Plaintiff’s Fact Sheets.

Per a Text Order entered into the docket for the U.S. District Court, District of Massachusetts, on January 23^rd, plaintiffs must serve their Fact Sheets by January 26^th in order to be eligible for selection to the into the initial bellwether discovery pool. The Court had previously set a January 12^th deadline.

The Court has also extended the deadline for the parties to select cases for inclusion into the initial bellwether discovery pool from February 7^th to February 14^th.

Stryker L-FIT V40 Femoral Head Recall

L-FIT V40 femoral heads are designed to be used with several Stryker modular hip stems, including

• Accolade
• ABG II
• Citation TMZF HA
• Exeter V40
• Hipstar
• Meridian PA
• Rejuvenate
• Reliance PF
• Restoration

Last August, Stryker recalled certain L-FIT V40 femoral heads because of a higher-than-normal rate of taper-lock failure. This occurs when the hip replacement’s femoral head fails to lock onto the stem at the stem-head taper junction. Patients who experience taper lock failure are at risk for:

• Loss of mobility
• Pain
• Inflammation
• Adverse local tissue reaction
• Dislocation
• Joint instability
• Bone fractures around the components
• Leg length discrepancy
• Need for revision surgery

The L-FIT V40 head recall has been designated a Class II recall by the U.S. Food & Drug Administration (FDA), which indicates that the affected components could cause temporary or medically reversible health consequences.

Stryker L-FIT V40 Femoral Head Litigation

Court documents indicate that around 180 Stryker hip replacement lawsuits involving L-FIT V40 femoral heads are pending in the District of Massachusetts, where all such federal claims have been centralized for the purpose of centralized pretrial proceedings.

Dozens of additional cases have been centralized in a multidistrict litigation now underway in New Jersey’s Bergen County Superior Court.

Plaintiff’ involved in these proceedings claim that the L-FIT V40 femoral head was not properly tested before being brought to market.  Like many other allegedly defective hip replacement components, L-FIT V40 femoral heads were brought to market via the FDA’s 510(k) program, which does not require a new device to undergo human clinical trials if it is shown to be “substantially equivalent” to a product that came to market via the agency’s standard pre-market approval protocols.

Plaintiffs further allege that Stryker wrongly marketed L-FIT V40 femoral heads as the perfect fit for younger, more active patients, even though the company was aware that the device was associated with a higher premature failure rate than similar components. Stryker is also accused of failing to provide doctors and patients with adequate warnings about the risks allegedly associates with LFIT V40 femoral heads.