We write today about a partial exclusion of a plaintiff expert in the upcoming Taxotere bellwether trial. We have blogged about other aspects of the Taxotere litigation previously. (Here and here, for example.) The case is In re Taxotere (Docetaxel) Prods. Liability Litig., 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 130339 (E.D. La. Aug. 5,
A little over a year ago, we reported on a decision by Judge Rufe (E.D. Pa.) dismissing an Avandia heart attack case on the grounds of the learned intermediary rule (Utah law). All of the plaintiff’s claims boiled down to an alleged failure to warn, and that was a problem for the plaintiff, as the
We love the unexpected. We loved standing up after what we thought was the finale of the fireworks show last night only to be left breathless by a stunning and unexpected encore. We loved walking in to a “quiet family dinner” for our recent advanced birthday to find the room filled with dear relatives and
The Eleventh Circuit has lately become a bit like Forest Gump’s box of chocolates—you never know what you’re going to get. The news today is positive. The Eleventh Circuit recently issued a gem of an opinion on the learned intermediary doctrine under the law of Alabama, which also happens to be the home of the
We are back in the trenches today after spending a wonderful day in New York with our lifelong best friend, in yet another of the blissfully endless celebrations of the milestone birthday we marked in December. We saw “The Band’s Visit,” a new musical based on a 2007 movie about eight members of an Egyptian
The district judge in the In re Zimmer Nexgen Knee Implant Products Liability Litigation MDL issued a summary judgment order in October 2016 that we called “the best Wisconsin law decision we have ever seen.” What was the reason for our unusually unbridled enthusiasm? The district judge debunked the idea that the learned
A recent case in the Southern District of New York debunks two myths that we see all the time. Myth number one: A medical device is defective if it fails. Myth number two: A plaintiff can prove causation on a failure-to-warn claim by asserting that he or she would not have consented to the procedure if his or her doctor had told her about some risk. Plaintiffs often assert these positions. Neither is true. And the magistrate judge’s report and recommendation granting summary judgment in Tomaselli v. Zimmer Inc., No. 14-CV-04474, 2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 9874 (S.D.N.Y. Jan. 20, 2017), does a really nifty job explaining why.
In Tomaselli, the plaintiff was treated with a hip repair device—a Greater Trochanter Reattachment device, or GTR. A GTR is not like the ball-and-socket total hip replacement devices that have generated so much litigation and with which so many of our readers are familiar. A GTR consists of a plate and two 1.8 millimeter cables that are surgically implanted to reinforce the top of a patient’s femur—the trochanter—in the event of a fracture. Id. at **1-2.
The plaintiff later complained of hip pain, and imaging revealed that one of the cables broke. Id. at *5. It is not clear whether the broken cable made any difference: The cable stayed in place, and removing it would not have alleviated the pain. Id. The evidence also suggests that the pain was not substantial: The plaintiff went for long periods of time between doctor’s appointments; she was able to exercise and engage in daily activities; and she testified that stretching and taking a few steps would relieve any pain. Id. at *6. The plaintiff sued the device’s manufacturer and distributor anyway, alleging a variety of product liability claims.
The defendants moved for summary judgment under New York law, and the magistrate recommended granting their motion on every claim. The magistrate’s report and recommendation is particularly interesting on the two issues that we foreshadowed above—failure to warn and product defect.