Broken Hip doesn't Break the Bank (Federal, PA)
The Third Circuit recently upheld a pretrial win for Zimmer Holdings Inc. over claims launched by a patient who sued the medical device maker after his hip replacement broke in Kline v. Zimmer Holdings, Inc. In affirming, the Court found that there was no showing that Zimmer acted unreasonably in designing the product or warning. On January 13, 2010, Gregory Kline underwent a total hip replacement. His surgeon implanted a Femoral Stem with Kinectiv Technology. On April 6, 2011, Kline’s hip replacement stem fractured at the neck. Kline sued Zimmer Holdings Inc., Zimmer Inc., and Zimmer United States Inc. (collectively, “Zimmer”), alleging several state-law product liability claims. By the time the case reached summary judgment, Kline’s only remaining claims were negligent design defect and negligent failure to warn. The District Court granted summary judgment to Zimmer on all counts. On appeal, the Third Circuit affirmed the judgment of the District Court because Kline failed to show that a reasonable jury could find that any unreasonable act or omission by Zimmer caused him harm. In support of his position, Klein argued that the failure of the Zimmer device in another patient treated by Kline’s doctor was key to proving his claims for negligent design defect and negligent failure to warn. However, the Court held that evidence regarding the other patient’s device failure was not admissible because it did not involve the same product under similar circumstances, nor did it (1) show notice to the defendant of the danger, (2) show the existence of the danger, or (3) show the cause of the accident. With respect to Kline’s claim for negligent failure to warn, Kline’s theory, supported by Zimmer’s experts, was that an individual of Kline’s weight or body mass index who engaged in vigorous activity was at a higher risk of device failure. However, as Kline acknowledged, a package insert for Zimmer’s device warned about those risks, at least in general terms. Accordingly, there was no evidence in the record that the risk was of a magnitude to require a contraindication at any specific weight, body mass index, or activity level, except that the device broke in Kline. Kline’s failure to prevail only goes to show that plaintiff’s counsel must still be able to prove that the product in question is in fact defective when that product fails, as opposed to inadvertent product failure. Thanks to Hillary Ladov for her contribution to this post. Please email Brian Gibbons with any questions.
0