Wright Conserve Hip Lawsuit | 2026 Latest Updates

Wright Conserve metal-on-metal hip implants drew lawsuits alleging metal debris, metallosis in surrounding tissue and early failure. Wright Medical Technology made the implants. Federal cases were centralized in 2012 as MDL No. 2329. Claims in that MDL and in California JCCP No. 4710 were addressed by settlement programs. The programs were announced in November 2016 and October 2017. A Canadian class action over the implants, not yet certified, was reported in August 2026. The cases sit before Judge William S. Duffey Jr. in the Northern District of Georgia. The JPML did not decide the merits of the allegations when it centralized the cases.

Latest Wright Conserve Hip Lawsuit Updates

August 5, 2026: Canadian Class Action Reported

The Investigative Journalism Bureau reported that Canadian patients are part of a national class action [1]. The action is not yet certified. It alleges the implants are “inherently defective.” The suit targets Wright Medical Technology, an American company. MicroPort is named in another class action with similar allegations. It is proceeding at the same time. Both companies have filed notices of intent to defend in Ontario.

October 3, 2017: Second Settlement Program Announced

Plaintiffs’ counsel announced a settlement program for the remaining eligible claims against Wright, as BioSpace reported [2]. The total was reported at up to $89.75 million. The release said Wright would obtain $35 million from its insurance carriers by December 31, 2017. The program was meant to resolve all remaining eligible pending claims.

November 2, 2016: Master Settlement Agreement Announced

Wright Medical Group announced a Master Settlement Agreement, signed November 1, 2016 with court-appointed plaintiffs’ attorneys [3]. It settles 1,292 identified claims in MDL No. 2329 and JCCP No. 4710 for $240 million. The release said about $180 million would come from cash on hand. The other $60 million would come from insurance recoveries. The final amount could not exceed $240 million.

March 29, 2016: Danish Study Published

The Open Orthopaedics Journal published a Danish study of 108 Conserve metal-on-metal total hips in March 2016 [4]. Mogensen and colleagues reported that 20 hips were re-operated. That is 18.4 percent. The mean follow-up was 53 months. Survivorship of the hips was 88 percent at 8 years, according to the same study.

August 31, 2015: Court Rules in First Bellwether Case

Judge William S. Duffey Jr. of the Northern District of Georgia ruled on motions in the first MDL bellwether case, Christiansen [5]. The motions covered experts and summary judgment. He granted summary judgment on the failure-to-warn claims. He denied it on the remaining claims. The plaintiff alleged she received the Conserve system on April 24, 2006.

June 12, 2015: Jury Returns $4.5 Million Verdict

A Los Angeles state court jury returned a $4.5 million verdict for plaintiff Alan Warner, Courtroom View Network reported [6]. It was the first Wright hip implant product liability trial. The jury found a manufacturing defect in his Profemur R stem. It rejected the design claim. That stem is not a Conserve component. Wright said it expected to appeal.

February 8, 2012: Cases Centralized as MDL No. 2329

The Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation centralized Conserve hip implant cases as MDL No. 2329 [7]. Its transfer order placed the MDL in the Northern District of Georgia. Wright opposed centralization. It argued that causation issues differ from plaintiff to plaintiff. The panel did not decide the merits of the claims.

November 10, 2009: FDA Approval Reported for Conserve Plus

Wright Medical Group received FDA marketing approval for its Conserve Plus hip resurfacing system, Becker’s Spine Review reported [8]. Wright was the maker of the Conserve line named in the later multidistrict litigation.

What Is the Wright Conserve Hip System?

According to the FDA-posted labeling, the Conserve Plus Total Resurfacing Hip System is a metal-on-metal hip resurfacing system [9]. It has a stemmed resurfacing femoral component for cemented fixation and a one-piece acetabular shell for cementless, press-fit fixation. It is meant to reduce or relieve pain or improve hip function in skeletally mature patients with arthritis. This includes patients whose younger age or activity level may make a traditional total hip replacement less suitable.

Who May Be Affected?

People implanted with a Conserve line hip were the subject of the MDL. The line includes the Conserve Femoral Surface Replacement, Conserve Total Hip System and Conserve Total A-Class Advanced Metal. The 2016 Master Settlement Agreement covered Conserve, Dynasty or Lineage revision claims pending or tolled in the MDL or JCCP. Revision surgery had to come within eight years of the original implant. Bilateral revisions counted as two. Whether a person has a claim today depends on individual facts, and a lawyer can review them.

Reported Injuries or Damages

The injuries alleged in the MDL were high levels of metal debris and metallosis in the surrounding tissue. Plaintiffs also alleged early implant failure, including loosening of the acetabular cup. These are allegations only. The Investigative Journalism Bureau quoted a 2012 Health Canada notice saying metal-on-metal hips were known to cause “pain, implant loosening and significant soft tissue reactions.” The Danish study diagnosed four pseudotumors. It reported “no substantiated link was made between adverse reactions and re-operations.” The two Danish departments in the study stopped using the implant.

Recall and Regulatory Background

The FDA proposed an order in January 2013 to move all metal-on-metal total hip implants from premarket notification to premarket approval [10]. The final order was published in February 2016 and took effect in May 2016. After that, makers of those devices had to stop marketing and submit premarket approvals. The FDA states that no FDA-approved metal-on-metal total hip replacement device is marketed for use in the US. The FDA action was a regulatory order. It was not a recall of the Conserve line. As of September 2019, the FDA listed two approved metal-on-metal hip resurfacing devices.

Evidence to Preserve

Keep these records together in one place, with a copy of each:

• Product details from the implant record or surgery report, such as maker, model, size and lot numbers.
• Dates of your hip surgery and any revision surgery, plus medical records, scans and metal-ion blood test results.
• Photos of any visible symptoms, plus receipts, bills and insurance papers for care tied to the implant.
• Any letters you got from the hospital or the maker about the implant.
• A written timeline of your pain, limping and any further surgeries, with dates.
• Any removed implant parts, which should be kept as they are and stored safely.

Filing Deadlines

Filing deadlines for a hip implant claim come from state law. They vary with where a person lives and when the implant failure, revision surgery or diagnosis happened. In some states the clock starts at discovery of the problem. Even a well-documented hip claim can end once the filing window closes. A person with a Conserve implant should check promptly with a lawyer in their state.

Frequently Asked Questions

Is There a Wright Conserve Hip Lawsuit Settlement?

Yes, there is a Wright Conserve hip lawsuit settlement, made up of two programs. The 2016 agreement depended on a 95% opt-in requirement, and the 2017 program covered the remaining eligible claims.

Is There a Wright Conserve Hip Recall?

There is no recall of the Wright Conserve hip line. The FDA’s action on metal-on-metal hips was a regulatory order. The FDA notes that patients who had a hip replacement before May 18, 2016 may have received a metal-on-metal implant.

What Does the Research Say About Conserve Hips?

The research on Conserve hips is one retrospective Danish study with no control group. It followed patients at two Danish hospitals who were implanted between November 2005 and December 2010.

Did Wright Medical Settle Every Conserve Hip Lawsuit?

Wright Medical did not describe the 2016 agreement as ending every Conserve hip lawsuit. Its release said the deal would help bring significant U.S. metal-on-metal litigation to a close, but that some lawsuits would remain.

References

1. https://ijb.utoronto.ca/news/metal-hip-implants/
2. https://www.biospace.com/wright-medical-group-inks-89-75-million-settlement-deal-for-metal-on-metal-hip-claims
3. 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
4. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC4814723/
5. https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/USCOURTS-gand-1_12-md-02329/pdf/USCOURTS-gand-1_12-md-02329-0.pdf
6. https://blog.cvn.com/breaking-plaintiffs-awarded-4.5m-in-first-trial-over-wright-hip-implants
7. https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/USCOURTS-cand-4_11-cv-03086/pdf/USCOURTS-cand-4_11-cv-03086-5.pdf
8. https://www.beckersspine.com/uncategorized/wright-receives-fda-approval-for-conserve-plus-hip-resurfacing-system/
9. https://www.accessdata.fda.gov/cdrh_docs/pdf3/P030042c.pdf
10. https://www.fda.gov/medical-devices/implants-and-prosthetics/metal-metal-hip-implants