Plaintiffs in lawsuits related to Stryker’s recalled LFIT V40 femoral head have asked the U.S. Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation (JPML) to create a single docket for all similar claims.

In the Jan. 13 petition, the plaintiffs say that the transfer and consolidation of pretrial proceedings will “promote the just and efficient conduct of these actions.” The petition requests that the pending claims be transferred to the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts where three personal injury suits are already moving forward.

According to the lawsuits, plaintiffs contend that the LFIT V40 femoral head caused them to sustain injuries, such as loss of mobility, inflammation, dislocation, bone fractures and more. Not only did Stryker fail to notify patients of potential defects but the company knew that the components were dangerous for years, the plaintiffs say.

In one complaint filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts on November 8, William D’Orlando claims he suffered metal poisoning and needed revision surgery after getting a Stryker artificial hip with an LFIT V40 femoral head.

Among other allegations levied against Stryker, D’Orlando claims that the medical technologies firm did not do its due diligence in protecting consumers and ensuring a safe product.

“STRYKER DEFENDANTS failed to adequately warn implanting physicians as well as the patients that the Accolade Stem and LFIT V40 Femoral Head were defective and could lead to patient injury,” the complaint states.

At the moment, at least six Stryker hip lawsuits specifically related to the LFIT V40 femoral head are currently pending in federal courts across the United States. But since more than 100,000 LFIT V40 femoral heads may be implanted in patients, plaintiffs filing the petition expect thousands of similar cases in the future.

By creating one multidistrict litigation docket, all pending and future cases would be able to share pretrial proceedings like discovery. This would improve the efficiency of the lawsuits and cut down on duplicate discovery and inconsistent rulings.

Plaintiffs are awaiting a response from the JPML regarding their petition request.