Stryker Rejuvenate Hip Implant Lawsuit

With an annual revenue of 9 billion dollars, Stryker Orthopaedics is known for its hip replacement device manufacturing across continents. One of their devices, the Rejuvenate, was given a warning letter and subsequent recall by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) in 2012. However, before the safety warnings about the Rejuvenate became public, many patients had already endured severe injuries worldwide at the hands of the modular-neck stem Rejuvenate device.

Approved for medical release in 2008, the Stryker Rejuvenate was designed for hip replacement surgeries in youthful patients who still were living a nimble, active lifestyle. Designed with the intention of longevity and durability, a similar product called ABG II alongside the Stryker Rejuvenate ended up corroding in multiple patients. Despite Stryker Orthopaedics' claims of increased stability for its hip joint patients, sales have been discontinued for these modular-neck stem products. Hip replacement lawsuits continue to affect Stryker Corporation to this day.

Sign up for our newsletter to get updates on drugs & medical devices

If you would like to sign up for our newsletter click the button below.

Sign Up For Newsletter

What Performance Claims Did Stryker Make?

Hip manufacturing from a variety of companies has previously had issues regarding friction and corrosion of metal materials in the body. To avoid this dangerous corrosion, Stryker claimed their Rejuvenate hip device was resistant to the degeneration and corrosion of the metals. This claim led medical professionals to believe the product to be safe and long-lasting for their patients in need of a hip implant. 

Styker also claimed the hip stem would:

  • Offer FlexibilityAs many surgical hip patients have trouble with movement, Stryker had promised intra-operative flexibility of the implant’s modular design. The company also touted the ergonomic enhancements included in the modular neck design. These enhancements were stated to be instrumental to the device manufacturing in promises of avoiding corrosion.
  • Enhance StabilityStryker claimed the Rejuvenate product would enhance stability by matching the mechanics of the device instrument to the individual’s anatomy. The company stated the biomechanic structure would lessen the risk of dislocation, a common concern for many hip implant patients. 
  • Include Modular ComponentsThe modular neck components present in the Rejuvenate device are said to include 8-10 different parts meant to match each patient, based on the hip surgeon’s discretion. Stryker publicly stated, “Every patient’s anatomy and lifestyle are different, which is why we have invested in developing cost-effective personalized hip solutions”.

Why Did Stryker Choose Metal for the Rejuvenate Hip Implant?

Stryker chose a combination of metals in the construction of the Rejuvenate hip implant including cobalt, chromium, and titanium. These metals were chosen with the notion of avoiding corrosion in a patient’s daily life with an alloy brand called Vitalium. Vitalium was chosen with the attention of having a hard metal that would uneasily loosen near the hip joint.

Why Was the Rejuvenate Hip Replacement Design Faulty?

Patients across the globe have been injured or left ill due to joint destabilization and metal corrosion of the Rejuvenate device. The metal corrosion led to metal poisoning or metal toxicity in thousands of hip implant orthopedic patients. Due to the 510(k) Premarket Notification Process, Stryker was able to avoid clinical testing and move forward with marketing the hip implant device. The 510(k) process allows companies to skip past clinical trials and avoid the massive research expenses that come along with it. Despite FDA approval, the ABG II and Rejuvenate devices designed by stryker were never tested on a human before being opened to purchasing capability by healthcare companies. 

What Problems Arose from the 510(k) Process?

Since companies like Stryker can skip testing with a 510(k) process, by the time complaints regarding the effects of the device are filed, the company has already made a profit through clinical sales. This process leads doctors to adhere to surveillance of the device in patients to see if there are any reports of issues. Unfortunately, the patients undergoing hip replacement surgery are held responsible for taking note of their health status post-operation and communicating with doctors thereafter. This faulty design and lack of clinical testing have caused many patients to sue for the lasting impact the device can have on an individual’s health and mobility. 

What Are the Side Effects of the Stryker Rejuvenate? 

Tissue reactions have occurred in thousands of patients who have used the Stryker Rejuvenate. These adverse reactions have determined the Rejuvenate implants to have a failed design.

Side effects reported by patients include:

  • NecrosisNecrosis is the tissue death and dissolution of bone joints from metal toxicity.
  • Metallosis—Metallosis, or metal poisoning, is caused by the corrosion of metal pieces that are released into the bloodstream during active friction of the device. This friction causes poisoning in surrounding tissue debris. 
  • Surgery Reconstruction—Since the device can lead to bone fractures, many patients need to go through reconstructive surgery to repair the subsequent bone fractures.
  • Surgery Revision—Failure of the Rejuvenate device has caused necessary revision surgeries in patients to remove the failed device and later replace it with a different device.
  • Inflammation—The hip implant device may cause inflammation throughout the entire body due to its failure. This inflammation sometimes includes pain and fatigue. 
  • Destabilization of Joints—Difficulty moving has been a common occurrence for patients with the Rejuvenate device. As the joint corrodes, the joints lose stability. This stability makes it difficult for patients to walk or continue an active lifestyle.

The side effects reported from the Stryker hip device have led patients to undergo more invasive treatments or surgical procedures. The longer recovery period from metal-on-metal poisoning continues to be one of the root causes of Stryker lawsuit cases.

Is There a Rejuvenate Hip Implant Recall?

The Rejuvenate hip implant device was recalled in April 2012 by the FDA. This was a Class 2 recall for its ineffective modular-neck stem. Before and after the recall period, Stryker sent out an apologetic safety notice for practitioners detailing the ion hazard from the excess metal debris. They continued their notice with statements regarding the inflammation in the surrounding tissues and joints of the hip socket that can be caused by metal-on-metal friction. This recall by the FDA caused production of the devices to pause and the completion of sales for Stryker Orthopaedics. 

What Rejuvenate Lawsuits Are There?

The modular-neck hip designs manufactured by Stryker have over 4,000 lawsuit claims against them. These lawsuits have been rooted under the false claims of Stryker Corporation and their failure to accurately warn both medical professionals and public users of the effects of the Rejuvenate device. The lawsuits are presently in both federal and state courts in multi-district litigations (MDLs). Lawsuits present in the New Jersey Supreme Court have been consolidated as a part of a class action lawsuit, and as of 2022, there remain 105 more cases against Stryker and its affiliates. 

What Rejuvenate Lawsuit Settlements Have There Been?

The Rejuvenate settlement claims have been listed at 1 billion dollars. While the company had an initial payout of over 1 billion dollars, there is no liability cap for Stryker. Only some cases of Rejuvenate failure have been settled in the courses, and more cases are expected as patients continue to have adverse effects. It is estimated by legal and regulatory officials that the payout Stryker will owe is likely to far exceed the initial settlement of 1 billion dollars as patients with injuries or metal-on-metal toxicity continue to come forward in court and seek compensation for their chronic suffering on behalf of the Stryker Orthopaedics company. 

Who Qualifies for a Rejuvenate Hip Implant Lawsuit?

A patient may qualify for legal compensation if they have had financial distress or ongoing cases of metallosis due to the Rejuvenate hip replacement device.

Qualifiers of a legal settlement with Stryker may experience issues including:

  • Dislocation of the joint
  • Metallosis (metal poisoning)
  • Pain and/or inflammation
  • Income loss
  • Mobility problems
  • The revision or reconstructive hip surgery
  • Unforeseen medical expenses
  • Bone fracture

If you or someone you know has had hip implant surgery with the Rejuvenate modular-neck device or have needed corrective surgery you may be eligible to receive legal payment from a settlement against Stryker for the failure of the device. Confirmation of eligibility is possible after speaking with a certified attorney.

How Do I Find a Hip Implant Attorney?

For a consultation regarding your Stryker Rejuvenate case, contact Seeger Weiss for a free evaluation. Until a settlement in court against Stryker Orthopaedics is confirmed and successful, your consultation with Seeger Weiss remains free of charge.


  1. CBS. (29 June 2012). FDA Panel Finds Little Use for Metal-on-Metal Hip Implants. CBS News. Accessed 07 October 2014
  2. FDA (6 July 2012) Recall — Firm Press Release, Stryker Initiates Voluntary Product Recall of Modular-Neck Stems. US Food and Drug Administration Safety. Accessed 07 October 2014.
  3. FDA. (2014). Information for Orthopaedic Surgeons. US Food and Drug Administration Medical Devices. Accessed 07 October 2014.
  4. Gibb, G., (22 September 2014), Her third set of hips after Stryker Orthopedics Rejuvenate Modular Hip System recall, Lawyers and Settlements, Accessed 07 October 2014
  5. HMP (2012), Lawsuit Filed in Mississippi Over Failed Stryker Rejuvenate Hip System, Harris Martin Publishing, Accessed on 07 October 2014
  6. Hollmer, M., (19 March 2014), Stryker, slowly but surely, settle 8 more metal hip lawsuits,
  7. Markos, K., (17 December 2013), Stryker Corp. settles first batch of hip-implant lawsuits,, Accessed on 07 October 2014
  8. Meneghini, R. M. , Evaluation of Painful total Hip Replacements Modular Metal taper Junctions. Accessed 07 October 2014
  9. News Medical (2014) Hip Replacement History. News Medical Net. Accessed 07 October 2014.
  10. Peck, E., (09 February 2008), Stryker Orthopaedics Launches the Rejuvenate Modular Primary Hip System. PR Newswire, Accessed on 07 October 2014
  11. PRWeb, (08 September 2014), As Stryker Hip Recall Litigation Grows, Coalition Urges FDA to Encourage Development of Medical Device Registries, Digital Journal, Accessed on 07 October 2014
  12. Singer, S., (27 January 2013), Artificial hips corrode, poisoning some patients, local lawsuits say, Palm Beach Post. Accessed on 07 October 2014
  13. Stryker. (June 2012). Rejuvenate Modular / ABG II Modular-Neck Stem Voluntary Recall. Accessed 07 October 2014.
  14. Stryker. (5 July 2012). Field Safety Notice RA2012-067. Accessed 07 October 2014