Johnson & Johnson Defeats Product Liability Suit Over Titanium Rod Used for Back Surgery
The Connecticut Appellate Court upheld a lower court ruling and granted Johnson & Johnson's request for summary judgment after plaintiff Raymond Ferrari didn't call an expert witness and failed to show the product was defective.
May 20, 2019 at 01:08 PM
4 minute read
The Connecticut Appellate Court has sided with a lower court in favor of Johnson & Johnson in a product liability suit by a man who underwent a spinal surgery that involved one of the company's products.
That product, a titanium rod, fractured during surgery at Hartford Hospital. It caused destabilization of plaintiff Raymond Ferrari's thoracic and lumbar spine, along with muscle spasms, pain and instability in his thoracic and lumbar spine, according to the March 2016 lawsuit.
But the appellate court ruled 3-0 Friday in favor of Johnson & Johnson's motion for summary judgment, saying the plaintiff had failed to produce an expert witness and that he could not establish the product was defective.
Court records show both sides had mutually agreed to disclose all expert witnesses by Jan. 15, 2017. But the plaintiff never brought forward any expert witnesses, and three months later Johnson & Johnson filed for summary judgment. However, the plaintiff claimed in court papers that a product defect can be inferred from the evidence without expert testimony, and that genuine issues of material fact existed as to whether there were adequate warnings on the product label. Ferrari also argued that expert testimony was not required to prove causation because “there is no dispute that the defendants product failed.”
The appellate court disagreed, and maintained the surgery at issue was complex and that expert testimony was needed to establish causation. The court also noted that Dr. Paul Schwartz, who performed the procedure, spoke to Ferrari about possible dangers of the surgery before the operation.
“The product at issue in the present case is a complex product: a spinal system which includes stabilizing titanium rods that are implanted into the patient's spine,” wrote appellate court Judge Bethany Alvord. “The implanted product components consist of 15 screws, two rods and two transverse transconnectors. Accordingly, we agree with the trial court's determination that expert testimony was required to establish causation.”
The plaintiff served a four-count complaint on Johnson & Johnson, alleging product defect claims under the Connecticut Product Liability Act and breaches of express and implied warranty.
But the appellate court found the plaintiff admitted “that the defendants' product was accompanied by adequate warnings in the product insert.”
“What the plaintiff claims is at issue, however, is whether, not withstanding the written warnings, the defendants' product representative, by his oral communications to Dr. Schwartz, nullified the written warnings in the insert and rendered the warnings inadequate,” Alvord noted for a panel that included Judges Michael Sheldon and Joseph Pellegrino.
Johnson & Johnson said the warnings remained in play. The company's attorneys told the Connecticut Law Tribune Monday the product is safe and that Schwartz gave adequate communication to Ferrari.
“They did not have expert witnesses and the doctor who implanted the device said it was a safe and effective device. They tried a fusion and it did not fuse,” said defense counsel W. Kennedy Simpson, a principal with Kentucky-based Thompson Miller & Simpson. ”We expected this ruling. It was pretty clear we were entitled to summary judgment. There are no appealable issues.”
Simpson added: “Johnson & Johnson was pleased with the result and thought it upheld the quality of their product.”
Assisting Simpson was Christopher Lynch of Hartford's Ryan Ryan Deluca.
Plaintiff's counsel, Andrew Skolnick of Milford-based Harlow, Adams & Friedman, did not respond to a request for comment Monday, and it was unclear whether his client Ferrari would appeal to the Connecticut Supreme Court.
It's not clear why the titanium rod fractured, but Alvord wrote: “The product was sold with a package insert containing several warnings about the risk of the product failure and breakage.” One factor, Alvord noted, could include the patient's weight that could “have an effect on the stresses to which the implant is subjected, and therefore on the life of the implant.” The court noted that Ferrari was 267 pounds at the time of the surgery.
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2024 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllRead the Document: 'Google Must Divest Chrome,' DOJ Says, Proposing Remedies in Search Monopoly Case
3 minute readApple Asks Judge to 'Follow the Majority Practice' in Dismissing Patent Dispute Over Night Vision Technology
'Don't Be Afraid to Dumb It Down': Top Fed Magistrate Judge Gives Tips on Explaining Complex Discovery Disputes
State High Court Adopts Modern Standard for Who Keeps $70K Engagement Ring After Breakup
Trending Stories
- 1Judge Denies Sean Combs Third Bail Bid, Citing Community Safety
- 2Republican FTC Commissioner: 'The Time for Rulemaking by the Biden-Harris FTC Is Over'
- 3NY Appellate Panel Cites Student's Disciplinary History While Sending Negligence Claim Against School District to Trial
- 4A Meta DIG and Its Nvidia Implications
- 5Deception or Coercion? California Supreme Court Grants Review in Jailhouse Confession Case
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250