Tags

, , , , , , , , , ,


Weitz & Luxenberg Files First Case Involving Injuries Caused by Recalled Stryker ‘Rejuvenate’ and ‘ABG II’ Hip Implants | Virtual-Strategy Magazine.

Weitz & Luxenberg Files First Case Involving Injuries Caused by Recalled Stryker ‘Rejuvenate’ and ‘ABG II’ Hip Implants

PRWeb

Monday, August 20th 2012

Weitz & Luxenberg will lead the national litigation against the manufacturer of the recalled Stryker Othropaedics product. Ellen Relkin, a lawyer in Weitz & Luxenberg’s defective medicines and devices unit, urged patients injured by this product to contact the firm.

New York City (PRWEB) August 20, 2012

The law firm of Weitz & Luxenberg, P.C. today announced that it is investigating and prosecuting cases involving patients who suffered harmful effects from either of two now-recalled artificial hip systems made by New Jersey company Howmedica Osteonics, also known as Stryker Orthopaedics.

“We are interested in hearing from individuals implanted with the Stryker ‘Rejuvenate’ or the Stryker ‘ABG II’ hip implant systems,” said Weitz & Luxenberg, a preeminent mass-tort and personal-injury litigations law firm that, over the years, has secured some $7.3 billion in verdicts and settlements for its clients. “We represent patients who have been terribly injured by these artificial hips within months of undergoing the strenuous total hip arthroplasty, only to learn that they need to have it removed and replaced, going through an even more difficult and painful surgery and rehabilitation.”

The devices were voluntarily recalled last month by their manufacturer.

Weitz & Luxenberg said it had filed the first case in the country involving the recalled hip implant stem (Pingel v. Stryker Orthopaedics, Sup. Ct. N.J.), and would be working alongside the Florida law firm of Searcy, Denney, Scarola, Barnhart & Shipley, P.A., counsel to the Pingels, to lead the Rejuvenate litigation.

Since Stryker is a Bergen County, New Jersey-based company, cases from plaintiffs around the country may be filed and centralized there, according to the firm.

Weitz & Luxenberg, through its offices in New York City and Cherry Hill, New Jersey, has won impressive verdicts in New Jersey state courts for victims of defective medications including the landmark $13.5 million verdict in McDarby v. Merck (Sup. Ct. N.J, Docket No. A-0076-07T1), the only Vioxx verdict in the country to be upheld on appeal, and a recent $9 million verdict for Accutane victim Kathleen Rossitto (Sup. Ct. N.J., Index # ATL-L 7481-10).

The firm also represented numerous plaintiffs in a prior litigation involving a different Stryker hip product, (Sup. Ct., N.J., In re: Stryker Trident Hip Implant Litigation) and was the court appointed liaison counsel to that centralized litigation.

Scientists have observed that under certain conditions the metal stem in these Stryker hips can corrode or fret, or both, causing metal ions to be deposited on surrounding tissues and give rise to adverse localized reactions. Weitz & Luxenberg’s Ellen Relkin, co-lead of the Multi-District Litigation for the DePuy ASR hip implant (MDL #2197), said this device can release high level of cobalt and chromium ions into the bloodstream and produce adverse reactions. These dangers are present, Relkin said, even though unlike the DePuy ASR, Biomet Magnum and Wright Conserve Cup, the Stryker Rejuvenate is not a metal-on-metal articulation device.

Relkin said that recipients of Stryker Rejuvenate implants had reported adverse local reactions including bone dissolution, inflammation of the synovial membrane, pseudo-tumors, stained metal tainted fluid in the joint and necrosis (death) of tissue, bone and muscle.

In April, Stryker Orthopaedics – a division of Stryker Corp., of Kalamazoo, Mich. – reacted to the corrosion and fretting risk of the Rejuvenate product by issuing an “urgent safety alert,” Weitz & Luxenberg said. Meanwhile, Canada required Stryker Orthopaedics to issue a so-called “revised instruction for use,” the firm added.

“This recall occurred in July,” Relkin said. “Patients who received an implant between April and July are rightfully angry, since the ‘safety alert’ did not prevent the use of the implant nor did it meaningfully prevent the injuries these patients may endure in the near future.

“The initial Rejuvenate line has been on the market since at least early 2009, and it received FDA approval in 2008.”

Weitz & Luxenberg said that Rejuvenate qualified for U.S. Food and Drug Administration approval under a fast-track process available to products that are “substantially equivalent” to those already greenlighted for sale by the FDA under standard rules of scrutiny.

“If you or someone you know has received a Stryker Rejuvenate hip implant that failed or is causing pain, please contact Weitz & Luxenberg today to discuss your options and let us answer any questions you may have,” the firm urged.

About Weitz & Luxenberg:

Founded in 1986 by attorneys Perry Weitz and Arthur Luxenberg, Weitz & Luxenberg, P.C., today ranks among the nation’s leading law firms. Weitz & Luxenberg has secured more than $6.5 billion in verdicts and settlements for its clients. The firm’s numerous practice areas include: asbestos and mesothelioma, defective medicines and devices, environmental pollutants, accidents, personal injury, and medical malpractice. Victims of accidents are invited to rely on Weitz & Luxenberg’s more than 25 years of handling such cases – begin by contacting the firm’s Client Relations department at 1-800-476-6070 or at and ask for a free legal consultation. More information: http://www.weitzlux.com

For the original version on PRWeb visit: http://www.prweb.com/releases/prweb2012/8/prweb9809504.htm

Related articles