A Stryker lawsuit update tells us that the manufacturer of the strike hip implant has agreed to a trial settlement with plaintiffs who were seeking financial compensation for their injuries. The company claims that it has been the sole manufacturer of the stryker device since it was introduced in the market in 1991. However, plaintiffs maintain that the strykers have caused them permanent disability and hip fractures even though the manufacturer has signed a non-discharge agreement. The agreement does not allow the company to be held liable for any personal injury or property damage as a result of the device. However, the company is being asked to pay back the money that was paid to them by the insurance company of the United States. This case has dragged on for several years now and there are more than forty class action plaintiffs who are waiting for the courts to decide on their case.
Stryker Lawsuit Update
Earlier on, the stryker was approved by the FDA for hip replacements only and did not include any orthopedic device for bursa prevention. However, later it was changed and now the device is approved to be used for all types of hip replacements including the bursa pressure ulcers as well as for the prevention of osteoarthritis and other degenerative diseases. Many physicians feel that the strykers have been largely responsible for the increase in hip fracture cases. They also claim that the strike device only helped increase pressure around the joint but did not prevent any worsening of the situation.
The Stryker lawsuit update reveals that the device causes many problems such as excessive pressure around the hip joints, internal pressure inside the hip joint as well as excessive pressure in the groin area.
The excess pressure leads to deterioration of the delicate structures around the hip joint, which results in increased friction between the hip joint and the bones around it. This facilitates the development of osteoarthritis. The stryker device was designed by a Dr. Arthur Nischan, a renowned expert in hip replacement and he received his doctorate degree from the University of Miami School of Medicine. It is therefore ironic that the device he invented is being sued for its failures.
A study conducted by the Florida National Association of Medical Examiners (NAMEA) found that there are certain factors that increase the risk of developing osteoarthritis.
These factors include a family history of osteoarthritis and obesity. It also shows that women are at higher risk of osteoarthritis than men due to the fact that they have larger bony growths on their hips. It is therefore understandable why the stryker was linked to an increased risk of osteoarthritis.
There are also many unanswered questions in the Stryker lawsuit update.
For example, is it possible that the device was faulty from the very beginning and that the manufacturer did not act to fix this problem? Was the device used for therapeutic purposes only and did it cause harm? Did the patient suffer needlessly because of the device? Was the device improperly used and did this cause injury or disease?
The lawsuit itself is not over yet. In the initial filing, the plaintiffs’ attorney asked for $1 million in compensation for pain and suffering, lost wages, past and future medical bills and other compensation.
The lead attorney, Robert T. Hinkle of Miami, has already indicated that the case will go to trial. In addition to that, he expects the judge to issue an order for controlled access devices to be sold to all potential strykers across the state of Florida. This means that the devices will be mandatory to all strykers. The judge is expected to issue a decision soon.