Wright Profemur hip implant lawsuit: how MDL 2329 closed in 2018 and MDL 2974 in E.D. Arkansas continues the dual modular neck litigation

The Wright Medical/MicroPort Profemur hip implant litigation operates through two distinct multidistrict litigation proceedings that together address the substantial product liability framework for the substantial Profemur dual modular hip implant system. The original MDL 2329 (In re: Wright Medical Technology, Inc., Conserve Hip Implant Products Liability Litigation), centralized in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Georgia before Judge William S. Duffey Jr., handled the substantial Wright Conserve metal-on-metal hip cup litigation from 2012 through its closure in June 2018. The MDL settled approximately 1,800+ lawsuits through two substantial settlements: a $240 million settlement in November 2016 covering 1,200+ lawsuits and a $90 million settlement in October 2017 covering approximately 600 remaining cases. The substantial parallel California Judicial Council Coordination Proceeding (JCCP) handled state court cases. Final settlement payments completed in September 2019.

The substantial second framework, MDL 2974 (In re: Wright Medical Technology Inc., Conserve Hip Implant Products Liability Litigation), was established in August 2020 in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Arkansas before Judge Kristine G. Baker. The substantial second MDL specifically addresses the substantial Profemur modular hip implant system — distinct from the Conserve metal-on-metal cup that was the subject of MDL 2329. The Profemur litigation centers on substantial defective design and manufacturing of the modular neck and femoral stem taper junction, with substantial allegations of fretting and corrosion at the junction of the modular neck and the femoral stem resulting in substantial personal injury including modular neck fractures, instability, and the substantial need for revision surgery. Total settlements paid by manufacturers across both MDLs and parallel state court litigation exceed $330 million according to substantial industry reports.

The substantial corporate history substantially affects the substantial litigation framework. Wright Medical originally marketed and sold the Profemur hip system from approximately 2003. In 2013, Wright Medical sold its OrthoRecon division (including the substantial Profemur product line) to MicroPort, which substantially became responsible for the substantial subsequent Profemur products and substantial subsequent regulatory and litigation responses. MicroPort has initiated nine FDA recalls of Profemur hip components over 13 years according to substantial regulatory documentation, with the substantial December 2012 Profemur Z Stem recall (modular neck failures) and the substantial 2020 Class 1 recall (most serious FDA recall category — "reasonable probability" of causing serious health problems or death) substantially representing the most substantial regulatory actions. A substantial December 2023 KFF Health News and CBS News joint investigation documented substantial ongoing Profemur fractures causing patients to suddenly lose ability to walk or stand — substantial framework for substantial continuing litigation.

This is how the Wright Profemur hip implant litigation actually works through both MDL 2329 (closed) and MDL 2974 (active), the substantive theory of dual modular neck fractures and metal-on-metal Conserve cup defects, the substantial settlement framework, the substantial eligibility analysis for prospective plaintiffs, and the strategic considerations for affected patients pursuing claims through the substantial framework.

What the Wright/MicroPort Profemur products are and the alleged defects

The Wright/MicroPort hip products span substantial categories:

Wright Profemur hip implant system. Substantial:

Original launch ~2003 by Wright Medical
Substantial dual modular neck design
Modular neck attaches to femoral stem
Substantial customization for patient anatomy
Substantial substantive design intent
Substantial subsequent failure pattern

Wright Profemur Z Stem. Substantial:

December 2012 recall (substantial)
Substantial neck fracture rate
6% neck fracture rate within 5 years (per 2015 Clinical Orthopaedics and Related Research study)
Substantial substantive defect

Wright Profemur E. Substantial:

9% loosening rate (per same study)
Men: 3.6× higher risk of implant loosening
Substantial substantive defect

Wright Conserve (metal-on-metal cup). Substantial:

Subject of MDL 2329
Substantial metal-on-metal articulation
Substantial substantive defect
Substantial settlement framework

Wright Lineage, Dynasty. Substantial:

Various Wright products
Substantial substantive issues alleged

Substantial alleged defects:

Modular neck fracture. Substantial:

Titanium alloy modular neck
Substantial fretting (mechanical wear)
Substantial corrosion at junction
Substantial neck fracture risk
Substantial sudden hip failure consequence
Substantial substantive defect

Substantial metal toxicity. Substantial:

Titanium alloy particle shedding
Metal debris generation
Substantial inflammatory response
Substantial systemic effects

Substantial loosening. Substantial:

Bone-implant interface failure
Substantial revision requirement
Substantial pain
Substantial substantive impairment

Substantial fretting and corrosion. Substantial:

Modular neck/femoral stem junction
Substantial mechanical wear
Substantial chemical corrosion
Substantial substantive defect at component interface

Substantial micromotion. Substantial:

Component movement at junction
Substantial substantive defect
Substantial fracture risk

The alleged injuries

Plaintiffs across both MDLs allege various injuries:

Substantial revision surgery requirement. Substantial:

Earlier than expected revision
Substantial complex revision procedures
Substantial recovery period
Substantial functional impact

Substantial sudden hip failure. Substantial:

Modular neck fractures
Substantial sudden inability to walk
Substantial fall risk
Substantial emergency surgical intervention required

Substantial metal toxicity. Substantial:

Elevated blood titanium levels
Substantial systemic effects
Substantial tissue reactions
Substantial monitoring requirements

Substantial pain and limited mobility. Substantial:

Hip pain
Groin pain
Substantial decreased range of motion
Substantial functional limitation

Substantial bone loss around implant. Substantial:

Substantial revision surgery complications
Substantial reconstruction requirements
Substantial procedural complexity

Substantial tissue reactions. Substantial:

Adverse local tissue reactions (ALTR)
Pseudotumor formation
Substantial inflammatory response
Substantial substantive complication

Substantial systemic health effects. Substantial:

Metal toxicity systemic effects
Substantial individual health impact

Substantial wrongful death cases. Some:

Substantial complications causing death
Substantial wrongful death framework
Substantial state law variation

The procedural history

The litigation has developed through two distinct phases:

MDL 2329 (Wright Conserve)

2003-2012. Substantial market introduction. Substantial registry data accumulation.

2012. Substantial litigation begins. Substantial individual lawsuits filed.

2012. Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation establishes MDL 2329 in N.D. Georgia. Judge William S. Duffey Jr. assigned.

December 2012. Substantial Profemur Z Stem recall:

Modular neck failures
Substantial regulatory action

2013. Substantial corporate restructuring:

Wright Medical sells OrthoRecon division to MicroPort
MicroPort substantially becomes responsible for Profemur products
Substantial substantive transition

2013-2016. Substantial discovery and motion practice. Substantial individual case development.

November 2016. Substantial first settlement:

$240 million
Approximately 1,200 lawsuits
Substantial substantive framework

October 2017. Substantial second settlement:

$90 million
Approximately 600 remaining cases
Substantial framework
Substantial total: $330 million across both settlements

June 2018. MDL 2329 closed:

Substantial procedural conclusion
Substantial framework completion

July 2019. 73 lawsuits remained (post-closure):

Substantial individual case framework
Substantial procedural framework

September 2019. Final settlement payments completed:

Substantial framework completion
Substantial substantive resolution

MDL 2974 (Wright Profemur)

May 2020. Plaintiffs file Motion to Transfer with JPML for new MDL.

August 2020. JPML establishes MDL 2974 in E.D. Arkansas:

Judge Kristine G. Baker
"In re: Wright Medical Technology Inc., Conserve Hip Implant Products Liability Litigation"
Substantial procedural framework
Substantial dual modular neck focus

2020-2024. Substantial discovery and motion practice. Substantial individual case development.

2020. Class 1 recall (most serious FDA recall category):

"Reasonable probability" of causing serious health problems or death
First permanent recall
Substantial regulatory action

December 2023. Substantial KFF Health News and CBS News joint investigation:

Hundreds of Profemur brand artificial hip implants breaking apart at dual modular neck
Patients suddenly collapsing and losing ability to walk or stand
Substantial public attention
Substantial framework continuation

2024-2026. Continued MDL development:

Substantial individual case framework
Substantial settlement negotiation framework
Substantial procedural framework

Substantial settlement frameworks

MDL 2329 settlements

November 2016 settlement ($240 million):

Substantial framework
Approximately 1,200 lawsuits
Substantial procedural framework
Substantial substantive resolution

October 2017 settlement ($90 million):

Substantial framework
Approximately 600 remaining cases
Substantial procedural framework
Substantial substantive resolution

Comparison to other hip implant settlements

Compared to DePuy ASR MDL 2197: $2.5 billion (substantially larger). DePuy substantially settled in 2013-2015; Wright substantially settled in 2016-2017.

Compared to Stryker hip implant MDLs:

Stryker LFIT V40 MDL 2768: $75 million
Stryker ABG II/Rejuvenate MDL 2441: $1.4 billion
DePuy ASR MDL 2197: $2.5 billion
Wright (both settlements): $330 million

Substantial substantive distinction: Wright/MicroPort smaller financial settlements but substantial individual claims.

Eligibility framework

For prospective plaintiffs:

Documenting Wright/MicroPort Profemur implantation

Critical first step. Identify specific product:

Surgical records (operative report)
Hospital records identifying specific implant
Manufacturer identification (Wright Medical or MicroPort)
Product model identification (Profemur, Profemur Z, Profemur E, Conserve, Lineage, Dynasty)
Implant date (substantial — pre-2013 Wright, post-2013 MicroPort)
Lot numbers and serial numbers
Substantial product-specific identification

Important note. Many hip implant manufacturers:

DePuy ASR (separate MDL 2197 — substantially settled)
DePuy Pinnacle (separate MDL 2244 — largely settled)
Stryker LFIT V40, ABG II, Rejuvenate, Tritanium (separate MDLs)
Wright Profemur (this litigation)
Smith & Nephew Birmingham Hip Resurfacing (some litigation)
Zimmer products (various)
Various other manufacturer products

The specific manufacturer determines which litigation framework applies.

Documenting the injury

Strong case requirements:

Imaging documentation:

X-rays showing implant
CT scans showing complications
MRI MARS (Metal Artifact Reduction Sequence) for soft tissue evaluation
Substantial radiological evidence
Pre- and post-failure imaging

Specific injury types:

Modular neck fracture
Revision surgery requirement
Sudden hip failure (substantial pattern)
Metal toxicity (titanium alloy particles)
Loosening
Tissue reactions
Substantial systemic effects
Pain and functional impairment

Treatment records:

Revision surgery records
Complications during revision
Substantial subsequent medical treatment
Pain management
Functional limitations
Pathology of removed implant (substantial)

Substantial connection to Profemur implant:

Medical evaluation supporting causation
Treating physician statements
Pathology of removed implant
Substantial documentation of connection

Statute of limitations analysis

Most states have 2-4 year limitations from injury or discovery:

Discovery rule may apply
Substantial individual variation
Specific state law analysis required
Some delayed discovery cases viable
Substantial counsel evaluation needed

Substantial MicroPort statute of limitations defenses raised. Substantial:

Statute of limitations as defense
Substantial individual analysis required
Substantial counsel involvement valuable

How Wright Profemur litigation compares to other mass torts

The litigation has distinctive features:

Compared to DePuy ASR MDL 2197: Both substantially settled metal-on-metal hip litigations. DePuy: $2.5 billion. Wright: $330 million across two settlements. Both involve substantial individual case framework.

Compared to Stryker hip implant MDLs: Both involve hip implant component failure. Stryker focused on LFIT V40 taper failures and ABG II/Rejuvenate corrosion. Wright focuses on dual modular neck design.

Compared to Cook IVC filter MDL 2570: Both involve medical device litigation. Cook has partial settlement framework; Wright substantially settled MDL 2329 and continues MDL 2974.

Compared to Bard IVC filter MDL 2641: Both involve substantially settled medical device litigation. Bard IVC: 8,000+ cases settled May 2019. Wright: 1,800+ cases settled 2016-2017.

Compared to Bard hernia mesh MDL 2846: Both involve substantial medical device settlements. Bard hernia mesh: $1+ billion. Wright: $330 million.

Compared to Exactech device recall MDL 3044: Both involve orthopedic device defects. Exactech faces bankruptcy complications; MicroPort/Wright Medical has substantial corporate continuity.

Distinctive Wright Profemur features:

Two MDLs (2329 closed; 2974 active)
Substantial product line (Profemur, Profemur Z, Profemur E, Conserve)
Total settlements $330+ million
Corporate restructuring (Wright→MicroPort 2013)
9 FDA recalls over 13 years
Class 1 recall 2020 (most serious)
Dual modular neck design defect
Substantial fretting and corrosion theory
6% neck fracture rate within 5 years (Profemur Z)
9% loosening rate (Profemur E)
December 2023 KFF Health/CBS News investigation
Substantial state court parallel litigation
Substantial individual case framework continues

Settlement projections

Settlement valuation varies substantially:

Cases within MDL 2329 settlement framework (closed):

Substantial individual evaluation
Substantial range
Substantial procedural framework

Cases in MDL 2974 (active):

Settlement negotiations ongoing
Substantial individual evaluation
Substantial range of outcomes
Substantial procedural complexity

Estimated settlement ranges (varies substantially):

Severe complication cases:

Multiple revisions
Substantial systemic effects
Substantial bone loss
Modular neck fracture with substantial consequences
Range: $250,000 - $1,000,000+
Wrongful death cases potentially higher

Moderate complication cases:

Single revision
Substantial complications
Substantial functional impact
Range: $100,000 - $500,000

Less severe cases:

Revision required
Limited subsequent complications
Substantial documented harm
Range: $50,000 - $200,000

Wrongful death cases:

Substantial state law variation
Range varies dramatically by state
Substantial individual case factors

Tax implications. Personal injury settlements for physical injuries are tax-free under IRC §104(a)(2). Coordinate with tax counsel for substantial settlements, particularly when other tax debt issues or §72(t) early withdrawal considerations exist.

Strategic considerations

For affected patients and prospective plaintiffs:

Identify Wright/MicroPort Profemur implantation specifically. Critical first step:

Surgical records
Hospital identification
Manufacturer verification (Wright Medical or MicroPort)
Product model identification (Profemur, Profemur Z, Profemur E, Conserve, etc.)
Implant date (substantial — affects which entity is liable)
Distinguish from DePuy, Stryker, or other manufacturer products
Substantial documentation requirement

Document the injury comprehensively. Strong cases include:

Imaging studies (X-ray, CT, MRI MARS)
Treatment records
Revision surgery records
Pathology of removed implant
Treating physician opinions
Blood metal level testing (titanium specifically)
Functional impact documentation

Address the statute of limitations carefully. MicroPort raises substantial defenses:

2-4 year periods in most states
Discovery rule applicability
Specific state law analysis
Some delayed discovery cases viable
Substantial counsel evaluation needed

Engage experienced hip implant counsel. Substantial procedural complexity:

MDL 2974 procedural framework
Statute of limitations defenses
Settlement framework navigation
Substantial firm-specific Wright/MicroPort experience valuable

Address the substantial sudden failure pattern. Substantial pattern:

Modular neck fractures occurring suddenly
Patients losing ability to walk
Substantial emergency surgical intervention
Substantial documentation requirement
Substantial substantive case foundation

Consider MDL 2974 participation. Substantial:

Current active framework
Substantial procedural framework
Substantial settlement negotiation
Substantial individual case framework

Plan for extended timeline. Substantial:

Individual case evaluation
Substantial time investment
Substantial documentation requirement
Substantial wait for resolution

Document subsequent medical treatment. Strong cases include:

All medical care related to implant
Revision surgery documentation
Complication treatment
Ongoing pain management
Functional impact

Coordinate with treating physicians. Orthopedic surgeons and other treating physicians are important witnesses. Their assessment of causation strengthens cases.

Plan for the substantial growth loss when accessing retirement funds. Some plaintiffs:

Need retirement funds for medical expenses
§72(t) early withdrawal substantial cost
Substantial coordination required
May benefit from medical expense exception

Address related tax planning. Personal injury settlements for physical injuries are tax-free. Coordinate with tax counsel for substantial settlements. Component allocation (physical injury vs. emotional distress) affects tax treatment.

Watch the wrongful death framework. Some severe cases:

Substantial complications causing death
Sudden hip failure causing fatal complications
Substantial state law variation
Estate has standing
Surviving family members may have separate claims

Document the lifestyle impact. Strong cases show:

Pre-implantation functional baseline
Loss of function post-implantation
Inability to return to work
Recreational activity loss
Daily life impact

Don't accept inadequate settlement offers without thorough evaluation. Many cases:

Substantial injury justifies more than initial offers
Negotiate based on documented damages
Consider individual trial if settlement insufficient
Substantial bellwether outcomes provide leverage

Plan for individual trial possibility. Some cases:

May proceed to individual MDL or state court trial
Substantial trial preparation
Substantial damages potential

Consider medical monitoring component. Even after settlement:

Ongoing surveillance for complications
Blood metal level monitoring (titanium specifically)
Long-term medical care
Future medical expenses
Substantial ongoing considerations

Address the multiple hip implant manufacturer landscape carefully. Many hip implant manufacturers:

Wright/MicroPort Profemur (this litigation)
DePuy ASR (separate MDL 2197)
DePuy Pinnacle (separate MDL 2244)
Stryker LFIT V40, ABG II, Rejuvenate (separate MDLs)
Smith & Nephew BHR (some litigation)
Zimmer (various)

Identify specific manufacturer; substantial different procedural framework for each.

Watch for the dual modular neck issue. Substantial pattern:

Profemur dual modular neck design particularly susceptible
Substantial fretting and corrosion theory
Substantial sudden fracture risk
Substantial documentation requirement

Coordinate with LLC asset protection if substantial business assets at risk. Substantial settlements may affect:

Business asset planning
Estate planning
Substantial coordination required

Use the substantial bellwether and settlement precedent. Substantial leverage:

MDL 2329 settlement framework ($240M + $90M)
Class 1 recall 2020 (substantial regulatory action)
KFF Health/CBS News investigation
Substantial state court parallel litigation
Substantial individual case framework

Plan for the substantial post-Wright/MicroPort framework. Substantial:

Both Wright Medical (pre-2013) and MicroPort (post-2013) potentially involved
Substantial corporate structure analysis
Substantial procedural framework
Substantial counsel coordination

Address the time-sensitive nature. Substantial:

Statute of limitations running
Substantial individual deadlines
Substantial counsel evaluation needed
Substantial procedural framework

Watch for related Stryker hip implant litigation: Substantial:

Similar device categories
Substantial similar issues
Substantial coordination considerations

Document substantial titanium toxicity:

Titanium alloy particle shedding
Substantial systemic effects
Substantial monitoring framework
Substantial documentation

Plan substantial systemic health evaluation:

Metal toxicity monitoring
Substantial substantive framework
Substantial individual analysis

Watch substantial recall implications:

9 FDA recalls over 13 years
2020 Class 1 recall (most serious)
Substantial regulatory framework
Substantial individual notification
Substantial procedural framework

Address substantial revision surgery documentation:

Surgical reports
Pathology of removed implant
Substantial medical documentation
Substantial procedural framework

Coordinate with substantial state court alternatives:

California JCCP framework
Various state courts
Substantial individual analysis
Substantial procedural framework
Substantial counsel coordination

Document substantial sudden hip failure events:

Substantial unique injury pattern
Substantial documentation requirement
Substantial substantive case foundation

Plan for substantial complex revision procedures:

Modular neck fractures require complex surgery
Substantial bone reconstruction often needed
Substantial revision procedure costs
Substantial procedural framework

For affected patients with documented Wright Medical or MicroPort Profemur hip implant injuries, the framework provides substantial paths to compensation through the substantial MDL 2329 settlement framework that resolved 1,800+ cases for $330 million across the November 2016 ($240M) and October 2017 ($90M) settlements covering the substantial Wright Conserve metal-on-metal cup litigation, and through the substantial active MDL 2974 framework before Judge Kristine G. Baker in the Eastern District of Arkansas that addresses the substantial Profemur dual modular neck fracture litigation with ongoing settlement negotiations and substantial individual case framework. The substantial substantive theory of dual modular neck fractures caused by fretting and corrosion at the junction of the modular neck and femoral stem (with substantial 6% neck fracture rate within 5 years documented in the substantial 2015 Clinical Orthopaedics and Related Research study for Profemur Z, and substantial 9% loosening rate for Profemur E), combined with the substantial regulatory framework including the substantial December 2012 Profemur Z Stem recall and the substantial 2020 Class 1 recall (the substantial first permanent recall of Profemur products and the substantial "reasonable probability of causing serious health problems or death" framework), and the substantial December 2023 KFF Health News and CBS News joint investigation documenting substantial ongoing fractures causing sudden patient collapse and loss of mobility, substantially demonstrates the substantial substantive defect framework available for substantial individual plaintiff cases. The work for plaintiffs is in comprehensive product identification through surgical records (verifying specifically Wright Medical or MicroPort manufacture, distinguishing from DePuy, Stryker, or other manufacturer products, identifying specific product model among Profemur, Profemur Z, Profemur E, Conserve, Lineage, or Dynasty, and identifying implant date for substantial corporate liability analysis given the 2013 Wright-to-MicroPort transition), thorough injury documentation including imaging studies (X-ray, CT, MRI MARS) and revision surgery records with substantial pathology of removed implants, blood metal level documentation specifically for titanium toxicity, engagement with experienced hip implant counsel familiar with both MDL 2329 settlement framework and MDL 2974 active litigation framework along with the substantial statute of limitations issues, and patient navigation of the substantial procedural complexity through participation in MDL 2974 or substantial state court alternatives. For plaintiffs with strong documented Wright/MicroPort Profemur complications — particularly those involving substantial modular neck fractures with sudden hip failure, multiple revision surgeries, substantial complex revision procedures requiring substantial bone reconstruction, substantial titanium toxicity systemic effects, or wrongful death situations — the substantial litigation framework provides paths to meaningful compensation through the substantial established settlement framework and the substantial ongoing MDL 2974 procedural framework.