Medical Device Litigation

DePuy ASR Hip Litigation: MDL 2197 Status and Recall Record

DePuy ASR hip implant claims are consolidated as MDL No. 2197 in the Northern District of Ohio. The FDA recall record, the 2013 settlement and 2026 case status.

Illustration of a metal hip replacement component beside federal court documents, representing the DePuy ASR hip litigation
Illustration of a metal hip replacement component beside federal court documents, representing the DePuy ASR hip litigation
On this page

Something in this article wrong, out of date, or missing its source? Send the editorial desk a note.

DePuy ASR hip implant claims are consolidated in MDL No. 2197, In re: DePuy Orthopaedics, Inc., ASR Hip Implant Products Liability Litigation, in the Northern District of Ohio. The Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation’s October 1, 2026 report lists 114 actions pending of 10,455 filed. DePuy recalled the ASR cup and the ASR resurfacing system in August 2010. Most claims were resolved through a court-supervised settlement program that the court announced on November 19, 2013.

At a glance

  • MDL No. 2197 was created by a transfer order filed December 7, 2010 in the Northern District of Ohio, initially before Judge David A. Katz (transfer order; court page).
  • The JPML report dated October 1, 2026 lists 114 actions pending of 10,455 filed, with Judge Jeffrey J. Helmick presiding (JPML report; court page).
  • The FDA’s ASR recall records show a firm-initiated date of August 23, 2010, a posting date of March 24, 2011 and termination on August 29, 2013 (FDA recall numbers Z-1749-2011 and Z-1816-2011).
  • DePuy waived its walk-away rights under the settlement agreement on May 20, 2014 (Doc. No. 695).
  • No court in the documents reviewed has found that the ASR device caused any individual patient’s harm.

What is the DePuy ASR litigation?

The litigation concerns two metal-on-metal hip devices made by DePuy Orthopaedics, Inc., a Johnson & Johnson subsidiary: the ASR XL Acetabular Hip System, used in total hip replacement, and the ASR Hip Resurfacing System. The transfer order describes the actions as sharing factual issues about “whether DePuy’s ASR XL Acetabular Hip System, a device used in hip replacement surgery, was defectively designed and/or manufactured, and whether DePuy failed to provide adequate warnings concerning the device”. Those were the plaintiffs’ allegations, and they remain allegations. No court in the documents reviewed here has entered a finding of defect against the device.

What did the FDA record about the recall?

The FDA’s medical device recall database holds enforcement records for the ASR cup systems. Two representative entries are recall number Z-1749-2011, covering the ASR Acetabular Implant size 44 under premarket notification K040627, and recall number Z-1816-2011, covering the ASR XL Acetabular Cup System size 63 under premarket notification K080991. Both name DePuy Orthopaedics, Inc. of Warsaw, Indiana as the recalling firm and carry recall event ID 57177.

Four dates matter in those records. The firm initiated the recall on August 23, 2010. The FDA posted the records on March 24, 2011. Both were classified as Class 2 device recalls. Both were terminated on August 29, 2013. The termination closes the FDA’s enforcement records; it does not end the litigation or the settlement program.

The records state that DePuy issued a Field Safety Notice in March 2010 telling customers not to implant the ASR devices, and the FDA’s determined cause field lists device design for both entries.

How large is the federal docket?

The Panel’s October 1, 2026 report lists 114 actions pending of 10,455 filed, so most filed actions are no longer pending before the court. The court’s order index records many dismissals with prejudice in 2014, 2015 and 2016, and some claims were resolved through the settlement program.

The docket remains active at a low level. The RECAP archive lists later filings, including an order dated February 10, 2026, but gives document numbers and descriptions only, so this article does not describe what that order decided. Nothing in the documents reviewed sets a trial date or a new claim deadline.

How did the settlement program work?

The court did not certify a settlement class. Under Judge Katz the parties set up a court-supervised U.S. Settlement Program, managed through case management orders.

Case Management Order No. 18, filed January 31, 2014 as Doc. No. 669, stayed case-specific discovery for any plaintiff who enrolled in the program. A plaintiff who intended to enroll could extend those obligations, other than registration, by notifying the defense of that intent before April 1, 2014.

By a notice filed May 20, 2014 as Doc. No. 695, DePuy told the court it was waiving its walk-away rights under sections 17.1.1.1 and 17.1.1.2 of the settlement agreement and was moving forward before the June 1, 2014 decision deadline. The notice stated that most eligible patients had opted into the program and that the timing and amount of compensation would depend on factors specific to each claim.

On February 20, 2015, the Settlement Oversight Committee and DePuy filed a joint status report, Doc. No. 889, announcing an agreement to extend the program to U.S. citizens and residents with ASR hips who had revision surgery on or before January 31, 2015, subject to the program’s terms.

What is established vs. what is alleged

Established by the documents reviewed: the JPML created MDL No. 2197 by a transfer order filed December 7, 2010, assigned to the Northern District of Ohio before Judge David A. Katz, and the court’s page now lists Judge Jeffrey J. Helmick as presiding judge. DePuy recalled both ASR devices in August 2010, and the FDA initiated-date field on the recall records is August 23, 2010. The court supervised a U.S. Settlement Program from late 2013, DePuy waived its walk-away rights on May 20, 2014, and the parties extended the program in February 2015 to claimants whose revision surgery occurred on or before January 31, 2015. The docket was down to 114 pending actions of 10,455 filed as of October 1, 2026.

Alleged, and not decided:

  • That the ASR devices were defectively designed or manufactured, and that DePuy failed to provide adequate warnings. The transfer order states those as the questions shared across the actions.
  • That metal debris from the implants caused cobalt and chromium exposure or soft tissue damage in any individual patient. The FDA’s recall records describe testing and monitoring steps, not a finding of injury in any person.

Key dates

  • August 23, 2010: DePuy initiates the recall of the ASR cup systems, per the FDA recall records.
  • December 7, 2010: The JPML files the transfer order creating MDL No. 2197 in the Northern District of Ohio before Judge David A. Katz.
  • August 29, 2013: The FDA terminates those recall records.
  • November 19, 2013: The court announces the U.S. Settlement Program.
  • May 20, 2014: DePuy waives its walk-away rights under the settlement agreement (Doc. No. 695).
  • February 20, 2015: The parties announce an extension of the program to revision surgeries performed on or before January 31, 2015 (Doc. No. 889).
  • October 1, 2026: The JPML reports 114 actions pending of 10,455 filed.

What this does not establish

No document reviewed here states a total settlement amount, so this article reports none. Press accounts have used various figures, but the court documents do not fix a sum.

No document reviewed here contains a finding that the ASR device caused any person’s injury, or a finding of liability against DePuy or Johnson & Johnson. The transfer order records allegations and the recall records describe a regulatory action; neither is a judicial determination of causation.

No document reviewed here states a per-claimant payment range, a claim deadline that remains open in 2026, or a procedure for a new claim. Anyone checking the status of a specific claim must do so with the court or the program administrator.

Frequently asked questions

What is MDL No. 2197, and how many DePuy ASR cases are still pending?

MDL No. 2197 is the consolidated federal proceeding for lawsuits about the DePuy ASR hip implants, In re: DePuy Orthopaedics, Inc., ASR Hip Implant Products Liability Litigation. The Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation created it by a transfer order filed December 7, 2010 in the Northern District of Ohio, and its October 1, 2026 report lists 114 actions pending of 10,455 filed. An MDL consolidates pretrial proceedings; it does not decide the merits of individual claims.

When did DePuy recall the ASR hip implant?

The FDA’s recall records for the ASR cup systems show a firm-initiated date of August 23, 2010. The FDA posted the records on March 24, 2011 and terminated them on August 29, 2013. The court’s page for MDL No. 2197 also states that DePuy recalled both ASR devices in August 2010.

Was there a settlement in the DePuy ASR litigation?

Yes, but not as a certified class settlement. The court supervised a U.S. Settlement Program announced on November 19, 2013, DePuy waived its walk-away rights on May 20, 2014, and in February 2015 the parties extended the program to claimants whose revision surgery occurred on or before January 31, 2015. The court documents reviewed do not state a total dollar amount.

Does this affect someone who still has an ASR implant?

That is a medical question for a treating clinician and a legal question for a lawyer licensed in the relevant state.

Sources

  1. United States Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation: “MDL Statistics Report: Distribution of Pending MDL Dockets by Actions Pending (October 1, 2026)” (link, accessed 2026-10-27)
  2. United States District Court, Northern District of Ohio: “Transfer Order, In re: DePuy Orthopaedics, Inc., ASR Hip Implant Products Liability Litigation, MDL No. 2197 (filed December 7, 2010)” (link, accessed 2026-10-27)
  3. United States District Court, Northern District of Ohio: “MDL 2197 In re DePuy Orthopaedics, Inc., ASR Hip Implant Products Liability Litigation (court page and order index)” (link, accessed 2026-10-27)
  4. United States District Court, Northern District of Ohio: “Case Management Order No. 18, Re: Plaintiff Enrollment in U.S. Settlement Program, Doc. No. 669 (filed January 31, 2014)” (link, accessed 2026-10-27)
  5. United States District Court, Northern District of Ohio: “Notice Re Walk Away Rights, Doc. No. 695 (filed May 20, 2014)” (link, accessed 2026-10-27)
  6. United States District Court, Northern District of Ohio: “Joint Status Report Regarding U.S. Settlement Program, Doc. No. 889 (filed February 20, 2015)” (link, accessed 2026-10-27)
  7. United States District Court, Northern District of Ohio: “Order No. 27, Reminder of Registration Update Obligations, Doc. No. 1098 (filed November 8, 2016)” (link, accessed 2026-10-27)
  8. Free Law Project, RECAP archive of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Ohio: “Docket, ASR Hip Implant Products Liability Litigation, No. 1:10-md-02197 (N.D. Ohio)” (link, accessed 2026-10-27)
  9. Free Law Project, RECAP archive of the United States Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation: “Docket, In re: DePuy Orthopaedics, Inc., ASR Hip Implant Products Liability Litigation, MDL No. 2197 (J.P.M.L.)” (link, accessed 2026-10-27)
  10. U.S. Food and Drug Administration: “Class 2 Device Recall, DePuy ASR Acetabular Cup System, size 44, recall number Z-1749-2011” (link, accessed 2026-10-27)
  11. U.S. Food and Drug Administration: “Class 2 Device Recall, DePuy ASR XL Acetabular Cup System, size 63, recall number Z-1816-2011” (link, accessed 2026-10-27)

CollectiveClaim.us publishes general legal information. This article is not legal advice and does not create an attorney-client relationship. Court records and agency actions change; verify current status with the court or agency before relying on it.

Related coverage

Tell us about your situation

Share a few details so a law firm that handles this kind of case can consider them. Submitting this form does not create an attorney–client relationship, does not mean a claim exists, and does not guarantee representation or compensation. We are not a law firm and cannot advise you. Corrections, source documents and press enquiries come through the same form.

Step 1 of 4

What is your message about?

Choose the closest match. You can change it at any point.

Who should we reply to?

Required, so that a firm reviewing your inquiry can reach you. Give the number you actually answer.

Your message

A short summary is enough. If you are reporting a correction, name the article and the sentence.

Please do not send confidential or privileged information. This form is not encrypted end to end, and nothing sent through it is protected by attorney–client privilege. Do not include medical records, Social Security or account numbers, or details you would only share with your own lawyer. Link to a public document instead.

Check and send
About
—
Name
—
Email
—
Phone
—
Message
—

Use Back to change anything before sending.

We use what you send only to answer you and, where relevant, to correct or source an article. We do not add you to a mailing list, we do not sell or share your details, and we do not pass them to lawyers or claims companies. See the privacy policy and what we can and cannot help with.

Source register

This article's claims are tied to the 11 sources listed in the Sources section above. Primary documents are used wherever available; secondary reporting is labelled as such.