Written By
Edited By : Kim Borwick
This page features 41 Cited Research Articles
Fact Checked

Editors carefully fact-check all Consumer Notice, LLC content for accuracy and quality.

Consumer Notice, LLC has a stringent fact-checking process. It starts with our strict sourcing guidelines.

We only gather information from credible sources. This includes peer-reviewed medical journals, reputable media outlets, government reports, court records and interviews with qualified experts.

Hip Replacement Lawsuit Updates

As of June 2024, several industry leaders were involved in multidistrict litigation with 2,074 cases pending. In many of these cases, multiple parties were named defendants, with the plaintiffs naming parent companies or subsidiaries in the suits.

Stryker is the defendant in both MDL 2768 before Judge Indira Talwani of the District of Massachusetts with 231 pending cases and MDL 2441 before Senior Judge Donovan W. Frank of the District of Minnesota with 68 open cases.

Zimmer merged with Biomet during litigation over its M2a Magnum hip implant. That MDL is now closed, but the company is the defendant in MDL 2859 before Senior Judge Paul Austin Crotty of the Southern District of New York with 5 pending cases.

Hip Replacement Lawsuit Updates
  • June 2024: Plaintiffs continued to seek damages with pending and new lawsuits, costing hip replacement companies more than $7 billion in settlements over the years.
  • May 2023: A U.S. Court of Appeals dismissed a False Claims Act suit a whistleblower brought against DePuy.
  • April 2023: A federal judge sanctioned Johnson & Johnson for delaying a Pinnacle hip replacement lawsuit and ordered the company to pay the plaintiff’s legal fees.
  • March 2023: The U.S. Food and Drug Administration issued a safety warning to consumers in conjunction with product recalls from Exactech for accelerated wear, failure and cracking in joint replacement devices.

The defendant in MDL 2197 before Judge Jeffrey J. Helmick of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Ohio is DePuy (ASR hip implant) with 235 pending cases.

The defendant in MDL 3044 before Judge Nicholas G. Garaufis of the Eastern District of New Y0rk is Exactech with 1,401 pending cases as of June 2024.

The defendant in MDL 2775 before Judge Catherine C. Blake of the District of Maryland is Smith & Nephew (BHR hip resurfacing) with 134 pending cases. 

Over the years, there have been millions in hip replacement lawsuits settlements and jury verdicts. Attorneys are still accepting cases.

Companies Involved in Hip Replacement Lawsuits

Companies are liable for any damages or loss caused by their products. There are several industry leaders involved in multiple lawsuits over their products. As of June 2024, some of these include:

  • DePuy: MDL #2197 with 235 open cases
  • Exactech: MDL #3044 with 1,401 open cases
  • Smith & Nephew: MDL #2775 with 134 open cases
  • Stryker: MDL #2768 with 231 open cases and MDL #2441 with 68 open cases
  • Zimmer: MDL #2859 with 5 open cases
three icons representing filing a lawsuit
Experiencing pain, device dislocation or other complications after hip replacement surgery?
Get your free case review today.

Why Are People Filing Hip Replacement Lawsuits?

Many patients experience serious complications from a faulty hip implant during hip replacement recovery and beyond, leading to lawsuits against device manufacturers.

Some complications include device dislocation, pain, device loosening, infections or metal poisoning, called metallosis. Complications often lead to additional surgeries to replace or repair the defective device.


In recent years, an increasing number of hip replacement lawsuits named metallosis and a metal-on-metal implant in the complaint. Metallosis is a metal poisoning caused when two metal components rub together and release microscopic particles into the body. These particles can lead to tissue damage and loosening of the artificial hip.

In a metal-on-metal implant, the artificial hip relied on a metal ball mounted on the top of the thighbone that rotated in a metal socket mounted in the hip bone. In addition to failing quickly, it also created metallosis.

Companies and products involved in metallosis claims include:
  • Biomet: M2a Magnum Hips
  • DePuy: Pinnacle and Ultima metal liners, as well as Articular Surface Replacement and Pinnacle hip implants
  • Smith & Nephew: Birmingham Hip Resurfacing implants
  • Stryker: LFIT V40 Femoral Head, Rejuvenate and ABG II implants
  • Wright: Conserve, Dynasty and Lineage hip implants
  • Zimmer: M/L Taper Hip Prosthesis implanted with its Versys Femoral Head

In hip replacement lawsuits involving metal-on-metal implants, the U.S. Department of Agriculture received hundreds of complaints over Biomet’s M2a Magnum from both doctors and patients. DePuy stopped the sale of all-metal versions of the Pinnacle system after numerous consumer complaints of metallosis.

Stryker dealt with lawsuits over two different products accused of leaking metal ions into a patient’s body. The medical community is now fully aware of complications with metal-to-metal devices.

Dislocation, Failure, Fracture or Loosening

Severe complications leading to consumer lawsuits over hip replacement products include product dislocation, failure, fracture or loosening. In addition to pain, patients experience joint dislocation or bone fractures from the device moving out of place.

While different products and companies are at the center of these lawsuits, Dupuy agreed to settle thousands of lawsuits over its ASR Systems, totaling more than $2.9 billion in payouts. Companies and products involved in dislocation, fracture or loosening claims include:

  • DePuy: ASR XL Acetabular System and ASR Hip Replacement Resurfacing System for implant failure
  • Smith & Nephew: Birmingham Hip Resurfacing System for dislocation or fractures; R3 Acetabular System for loosening and implant failure
  • Stryker: Tritanium Acetabular Shells for loosening
  • Zimmer: Durom cup implant for failing to fuse in some patients

For these companies, the injuries and complications to patients were so severe that many had to issue product recalls. Smith & Nephew recalled more than 6,000 hip replacement implants, while Stryker issued 9,000 ABG II implant recalls and 44,000 Rejuvenate implant recalls.

Stryker ultimately issued a worldwide market withdrawal on all Rejuvenate and ABG II hip implants and paid nearly $2.2 billion in settlements. Zimmer faced similar challenges with its Durom Cup product, issuing a temporary recall in 2008 but finally discontinuing it in 2010 after repeated issues.

three icons representing filing a lawsuit
Suffering serious complications from a metal-on-metal hip implant?
Get your free case review today.

Hip Replacement Verdicts and Settlements

Numerous verdicts in hip replacement lawsuits favored the plaintiffs. Those who experienced the pain and trauma of complications and joined the MDLs received compensation.

In many of the MDLs, cases do not end up in court. Companies often choose to settle out of court. Here are some of the settlement agreements:

$4 billion: DePuy settlements over Pinnacle and ASR hip products total over $4 billion across 20,000 separate claims that combined for the mass lawsuit.

$2.9 billion: DePuy paid claimants $2.9 billion for suits directly related to its ASR Hip Resurfacing System and ASR XL Acetabular System.

$1.4 billion: Over two years, Stryker paid $1.4 billion for over 3,500 claims against its Rejuvenate and ABG II Hip products.

$502 million: A Texas jury awarded five plaintiffs $502 million from Johnson & Johnson over defective DePuy Pinnacle hip implant devices.

$330 million: Wright Medical paid $330 million to plaintiffs with complaints against its Conserve, Dynasty and Lineage hip implant products.

$165,000: Zimmer offered a base award of $165,000 per hip for plaintiffs seeking compensation after experiencing complications with its Durom Cup.

There are still pending lawsuits with many of these companies. MDL 2775 alleges product liability against Smith & Nephew for its Birmingham Hip Resurfacing system, though litigation is also pending against the Modular SMF or Modular Redapt hip replacement products.

Several things determine hip replacement lawsuit settlement amounts, such as the injuries, number of plaintiffs and settlement limitations. While specific amounts vary, injured parties can expect to receive several hundred thousand dollars in compensation.

Multistate Deceptive Marketing Settlement

In January 2019, DePuy agreed to pay $120 million to settle claims where plaintiffs alleged unfair and deceptive marketing of both the Pinnacle Ultamet and ASR XL hip implants. The company also agreed to monitor device complications and update complaint tracking.

Please seek the advice of a qualified professional before making decisions about your health or finances.
Last Modified: June 3, 2024

41 Cited Research Articles

Consumernotice.org adheres to the highest ethical standards for content production and references only credible sources of information, including government reports, interviews with experts, highly regarded nonprofit organizations, peer-reviewed journals, court records and academic organizations. You can learn more about our dedication to relevance, accuracy and transparency by reading our editorial policy.

  1. U.S. Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation. (2024, June 3). MDL Statistics Report - Distribution of Pending MDL Dockets by District. Retrieved from https://www.jpml.uscourts.gov/sites/jpml/files/Pending_MDL_Dockets_By_Actions_Pending-June-3-2024.pdf
  2. FDA. (2023, June 21). Class 2 Device Recall Modular REDAPT(TM) Hip Systems. Retrieved from https://www.accessdata.fda.gov/scripts/cdrh/cfdocs/cfRes/res.cfm?ID=151502
  3. Morris, W. (2022, September 21). After Lengthy Legal Battle, Iowa Woman Gets to Keep $3.5 Million Jury Awarded for Defective Hip Implant. Retrieved from https://www.desmoinesregister.com/story/news/crime-and-courts/2022/08/26/iowa-woman-defective-hip-implant-biomet-magnum-jury-verdict-appeal-8th-circuit-court/7898306001/
  4. Rahman, M. (2021, August 27). $502 Million Dollar Verdict Against Johnson & Johnson In DePuy Pinnacle Hip Implant MDL. Retrieved from https://www.expertinstitute.com/resources/insights/502-million-dollar-verdict-against-johnson-johnson-in-depuy-pinnacle-hip-implant-mdl/
  5. Hale, C. (2019, May 8). J&J’s Pinnacle Hip Settlements Total About $1B: Bloomberg. Retrieved from https://www.fiercebiotech.com/medtech/j-j-s-pinnacle-hip-settlement-total-tops-1-billion-bloomberg
  6. Feeley, J. (2019, May 7). J&J Pays About $1 Billion to Resolve Pinnacle Hip Suits. Retrieved from https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2019-05-07/j-j-said-to-pay-about-1-billion-to-resolve-pinnacle-hip-suits
  7. Bellon, T. (2019, January 22). J&J, U.S. States Settle Hip Implant Claims for $120 Million. Retrieved from https://www.reuters.com/article/us-johnson-johnson-settlement/jj-u-s-states-settle-hip-implant-claims-for-120-million-idUSKCN1PG26K
  8. Densford, F. (2019, January 22). J&J Settles Hip Implant Litigation With AGs for $120M. Retrieved from https://www.massdevice.com/jj-settles-hip-implant-litigation-with-ags-for-120m
  9. DelMonico, K. (2018, December 20). $400 Million Settlement Reported in Johnson & Johnson Hip Lawsuits. Retrieved from https://ryortho.com/breaking/400-million-settlement-reported-in-johnson-johnson-hip-lawsuits/
  10. Perriello, B. (2018, November 5). Stryker, Plaintiffs to Settle Hip Implant Cases. Retrieved from https://www.massdevice.com/stryker-plaintiffs-to-settle-hip-implant-cases/
  11. U.S. Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation. (2018, October 3). Zimmer M/L Taper Hip Prosthesis or M/L Taper Hip Prosthesis with Kinectiv Technology and Versys Femoral Head Products Liability Litigation. Retrieved from http://www.jpml.uscourts.gov/sites/jpml/files/MDL-2859-Transfer-Order-09-18.pdf
  12. Bellon, T. (2018, June 25). Federal Judge Closes Wright Medical Hip Implant MDL After Settlement. Retrieved from: https://www.reuters.com/article/products-wright-medical/federal-judge-closes-wright-medical-hip-implant-mdl-after-settlement-idUSL1N1TR20C
  13. U.S. Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation. (2018, June 6). In RE: Smith & Nephew Birmingham Hip Resurfacing (BHR) Hip Implant Products Liability Litigation. Retrieved from https://www.jpml.uscourts.gov/sites/jpml/files/MDL-2775-Tag-Along_Motion_Transfered-05-18.pdf
  14. Carli, A., Warth, L. & Nestor, B.J. (2018, February 21). Primary Tritanium Acetabular Components Are Associated With a High Prevalence of Radiolucencies Which Compromise Clinical Function at Short Term Follow-Up. Retrieved from https://online.boneandjoint.org.uk/doi/abs/10.1302/1358-992X.98BSUPP_7.ISTA2015-070
  15. Long, W.J. et al. (2018, January 2). Early Aseptic Loosening of the Tritanium Primary Acetabular Component with Screw Fixation. Retrieved from https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2352344117301735#bib21
  16. Johnson & Johnson. (2018). 2018 Annual Report. Retrieved from https://www.investor.jnj.com/files/doc_financials/2018/ar/2018-annual-report.pdf
  17. U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission. (2017, October 3). Form 8-K: Wright Medical Group N.V. Retrieved from http://secfilings.nasdaq.com/filingFrameset.asp?FilingID=12311277&RcvdDate=10/4/2017&CoName=WRIGHT%20MEDICAL%20GROUP%20N.V.&FormType=8-K&View=orig
  18. U.S. ASR Hip Settlement. (2017, March 3). 2017 ASR Extension Agreement Between DePuy Orthopaedics Inc. and The Counsel Listed on the Signature Pages Hereto. Retrieved from https://www.usasrhipsettlement.com/un-secure/Docs/ASR_2017_Extension_Agreement.pdf
  19. U.S. Food and Drug Administration. (2017, January 4). Class 2 Device Recall Modular Redapt Hip Systems. Retrieved from https://www.accessdata.fda.gov/scripts/cdrh/cfdocs/cfRes/res.cfm?ID=151502
  20. Perriello, B. (2016, November 17). Smith & Nephew Recalls Modular SMF, Modular Redapt Hip Implants. Retrieved from https://www.massdevice.com/smith-nephew-recalls-modular-smf-modular-redapt-hip-implants/
  21. Wright Medical. (2016, November 2). Wright Medical Group N.V. Announces Entry Into Metal-on-Metal Hip Litigation Settlement Agreement. Retrieved from https://www.globenewswire.com/news-release/2016/11/02/885940/0/en/Wright-Medical-Group-N-V-Announces-Entry-Into-Metal-On-Metal-Hip-Litigation-Settlement-Agreement.html
  22. U.S. Food and Drug Administration. (2016, November 9). Class 2 Device Recall Stryker LFIT Anatomic V40 Femoral Head. Retrieved from https://www.accessdata.fda.gov/scripts/cdrh/cfdocs/cfRes/res.cfm?ID=149782
  23. Mogensen, S.L. et al. (2016, March 29). High Re-Operation Rates Using Conserve Metal-on-Metal Total Hip Articulations. Retrieved from https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4814723/
  24. Zimmer Biomet. (2016). 2016 Annual Report. Retrieved from https://investor.zimmerbiomet.com/~/media/Files/Z/ZimmerBiomet-IR/documents/annual-reports/zbh-2016-annual-report-final-with-bookmarks.pdf
  25. U.S. Food and Drug Administration. (2015, September 10). Class 2 Device Recall Smith & Nephew: Birmingham Hip Resurfacing Femoral Head. Retrieved from https://www.accessdata.fda.gov/scripts/cdrh/cfdocs/cfres/res.cfm?id=139519
  26. Perriello, B. (2014, November 4). UPDATE: Stryker Inks $1B+ Deal to Settle Hip Implant Cases. Retrieved from https://www.massdevice.com/update-stryker-inks-1b-deal-settle-hip-implant-cases/
  27. Cortez, M.F. (2014, April 24). Zimmer to Buy Biomet for $13.4 Billion Adding Orthopedics. Retrieved from https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2014-04-24/zimmer-agrees-to-buy-biomet-for-13-35-billion-including-debt
  28. Eisner, W. (2014, February 5). Judge Approves $56 Million Biomet Metal Hip Settlement. Retrieved from https://ryortho.com/breaking/judge-approves-56-million-biomet-metal-hip-settlement/
  29. Greene, K. (2014, February 3). Biomet to Pay $56M to Settle Hip Replacement MDL. Retrieved from https://www.law360.com/articles/506687/biomet-to-pay-56m-to-settle-hip-replacement-mdl
  30. Reuters. (2014, February 3). Biomet Reaches $56 Million Settlement Over Faulty Hip Replacements. Retrieved from https://www.reuters.com/article/us-biomet-settlement/biomet-reaches-56-million-settlement-over-faulty-hip-replacements-idUSBREA1305Y20140204
  31. Johnson & Johnson. (2013, November 19). DePuy Announces U.S. Settlement Agreement to Compensate ASR™ Hip System Patients Who Had Surgery to Replace Their ASR Hip. Retrieved from https://www.jnj.com/media-center/press-releases/depuy-announces-us-settlement-agreement-to-compensate-asr-hip-system-patients-who-had-surgery-to-replace-their-asr-hip
  32. Mass Device. (2012, July 6). FLASH: Stryker Recalls Pair of Metal Hip Implants, Halts Global Production. Retrieved from https://www.massdevice.com/flash-stryker-recalls-pair-metal-hip-implants-halts-global-production/
  33. Mass Device. (2012, June 1). Smith & Nephew Pulls Metal-on-Metal Hip Component. Retrieved from https://www.massdevice.com/smith-nephew-pulls-metal-metal-hip-component/
  34. Associated Press. (2012, June 1). Smith & Nephew Withdraws Hip Device Component. Retrieved from https://www.sandiegouniontribune.com/sdut-smith-nephew-withdraws-hip-device-component-2012jun01-story.html
  35. Kavilanz, P. (2010, August 26). J&J Unit Recalls 93,000 Hip Implant Systems. Retrieved from https://money.cnn.com/2010/08/26/news/companies/johnson_depuy_hipsystem_recall/
  36. U.S. Food and Drug Administration. (2008, September 26). Class 2 Device Recall Durom Cup. Retrieved from https://www.accessdata.fda.gov/scripts/cdrh/cfdocs/cfres/res.cfm?id=72743
  37. U.S. Food and Drug Administration. (2015, September 10). Class 2 Device Recall Smith & Nephew Zimmer. Retrieved from https://www.fda.gov/media/76380/download
  38. U.S. Food and Drug Administration. (2007, September 26). Product Recall Notification Immediate Response Required. Retrieved from https://www.fda.gov/media/76380/download
  39. GovInfo. (n.d.). 7-2768 - In Re: Stryker LFIT V40 Femoral Head Products Liability Litigation. Retrieved from https://www.govinfo.gov/app/details/USCOURTS-mad-1_17-md-02768/USCOURTS-mad-1_17-md-02768-3
  40. U.S. ASR Hip Settlement. (n.d.). Welcome to the U.S. ASR Hip Settlement Program Website. Retrieved from https://www.usasrhipsettlement.com/
  41. United States District Court District of Maryland. (n.d.). In re Smith & Nephew Birmingham Hip Resurfacing (BHR) Hip Implant Products Liability Litigation (MDL No.2775). Retrieved from https://www.mdd.uscourts.gov/re-smith-nephew-birmingham-hip-resurfacing-bhr-hip-implant-products-liability-litigation-mdl-no2775