The FDA has called into question the viability and reliability of metal-on-metal hip implants. For the thousands of patients who are currently experiencing or have formerly dealt with complications due to these devices, the road to healing and renewed health can be arduous. The recent influx in litigation surrounding metal-on-metal hip implants shines a light on the severity of the problems experienced by patients who have received them.

The need for additional surgeries to remove devices and/or repair any damages incurred by device implantation is plaguing thousands of artificial hip recipients. The necessitation of additional surgeries is only one component of the increased medical costs surrounding these unreliable devices, and the pain and suffering experienced by recipients is costing the industry billions of dollars in consumer reparations. Over the past few years, the litigation spurred to address these necessary reparations have grown in both the number of cases and the settlement amounts.18447801_s copy

Recent Jury Settlements

March 2016– Five implant victims in Dallas were awarded a $502 million settlement from DePuy, whose parent company is Johnson & Johnson. It was revealed that the company was aware of the fact that an increased failure rate was probable in over 40% of the Pinnacle implants that were manufactured during a 10 year period.

December 2015– An $11 million settlement was awarded to an Atlanta woman who experienced complications after her failing implant manufactured by Wright Medical Technologies had to be removed. Upon removal of the faulty Conserve Plus, doctors discovered that the patient was suffering from metallosis and other maladies contributed to the breakdown of the metal-on-metal device.

June 2015– A Los Angeles man was awarded $4.5 million from Wright Medical Technologies due to the faulty manufacturing of his device. This case was unique because a manufacturing error caused the device to suddenly snap after only three years and required 14 surgeries to repair the damages that resulted. Most settlement cases involve metallosis or other issues surrounding a release of toxins from metal particles entering the bloodstream and damaging surrounding areas.

November 2014– Two metal-on-metal hip implants produced by Stryker were the center of a $1.43 billion settlement. The implants were released and marketed by Stryker at a time when the manufacturers of other similar products were being scrutinized. The Rejuvenate and ABG II Modular Neck Hip Stems were recalled in 2012, but the poor quality of the devices implanted prior to this were already taking their toll.

November 2013– A settlement of over $4 billion was reached regarding DePuy’s Articular Surface Replacement (ASR) metal-on-metal device. The devices were recalled in 2010 after reported failures in over 12% of those implanted had occurred. The company’s knowledge of device issues and failure to inform the public and remove devices from the market were at the forefront of this hefty payout to thousands of device recipients.

When good health and treatment options are compromised due to poor quality of medical devices, the patients who suffer the consequences need to be compensated. The recent litigation surrounding metal-on-metal hip implants shows that the manufacturers of these devices are being held accountable for the pain and suffering incurred from their faulty equipment. If you or a loved one have fallen victim to complications from a metal-on-metal hip implant, the compassionate and experienced team at the Fitch Law Firm can navigate the legal channels to see justice served. Call (855) 529-6446 and take the first step toward holding the guilty parties accountable for your pain and suffering.

CategoryBad Devices
  1. October 22, 2016

    Thank you for mentioning our blog (o’conors o’pinions); we’ve found your blog through Giornale Nuovo and we’ve been following it daily ever sier.echencs,the o’connors 🙂

Write a comment:


Your email address will not be published.

Copyright© 2020, The Fitch Law Firm



We serve the following localities: Franklin County including Columbus; Cuyahoga County including Cleveland and Independence; Delaware County including Delaware; Greene County including Beavercreek; Hamilton County including Cincinnati; Licking County including Newark; Lucas County including Toledo; Mahoning County including Youngstown; Montgomery County including Dayton; Stark County including Canton; and Summit County including Akron.

* Case value and results depend upon the unique facts of each case, these results do not predict or suggest the value of any other case. In the 134M case result, the trial court reduced the jury's verdict to 114M. Mr. Fitch's client is appealing.

Legal Disclaimer: The information on this site should not relied upon as legal advice nor the formation of an attorney client relationship.

COVID-19 Update: We Are Open Learn More