Judge Rejects Defendant’s Argument in Stryker Hip Implant Lawsuit

April 11, 2013 by Nicole Barto

The Stryker hip metal on metal implant recall has affected many patients and their loved ones. These patients who live all across the country and even in Tennessee have suffered with pain, squeaking, popping, and various other complications due to the defective medical devices. If you or someone you care about has experienced these or other problems after receiving a medical implant or device, then you are encourage to contact a Tennessee personal injury and defective medical device lawyer right away. They can hear your claim and help you determine the compensation you may be entitled to based on your claim and your injuries.

According to this lawsuit, Darlene Gray received her Trident hip replacement device in August, 2005, and began experiencing complications from her hip a short time later, including popping, squeaking, and ongoing pain. Gray eventually underwent hip revision surgery to remove and replace the faulty implant.

Judge Tanya W. Pratt denied the defendant’s request to dismiss the case. According to Gray’s initial complaint, Stryker Corp. was listed as the only defendant. The plaintiff amended her original complaint to include Howmedica Osteoncics Corp., which also conducts business as Stryker Orthopedics Inc. Howmedica has been named on other lawsuits involving the Trident hip implant.

Howmedica stated in their request that Gray’s allegations are barred by the Medical Device Act. This act preempts claims against class III devices, like the Trident hip replacement listed in Gray’s lawsuit. Class III devices are subject to a vigorous premarket approval process, a fact that is not included in Gray’s amended complaint.

Howmedica also asserts in their request for dismissal that Gray did not specify in her complaint whether her injuries were a result of manufacturing defect or physician error. She did not specifically list the components of the device that led to her injuries. The defendant argued that Gray also failed to offer details of the FDA’s findings on the device or the Stryker Trident recall that was issued in 2008.

Judge Pratt, stated, however that Gray sufficiently alleged a manufacturing defect to avoid Medical Device Act preemption. Although Gray made no specific allegations of federal law violations, Judge Pratt determined that the plaintiff did clearly allege that complications were due to manufacturing defect and lack of quality control in the manufacturing process. Judge Pratt explains that Gray’s complaint “puts defendants on notice that her claims are premised upon allegations that some federal law or regulation was violated.”
Judge Pratt also states in her decision that Gray has shown in her complaint that the Stryker Trident recall was based on the FDA’s findings that the device was not manufactured properly.

It is true that in some cases, the Medical Device Act protects companies of medical devices and many cases are dismissed under this act, however, in this case, the plaintiff did cite that there was a manufacturing defect so that the Medical Device Act preemption could not be used in this particular case. If you feel that your case or the case of a loved one may be similar to this one, then please contact our office to speak with one of our Stryker metal on metal recall lawyers today.. We will discuss with you your claim and all the legal options you may have.