Federal Court Addresses Products Liability Claims Involving a Medical Device

In the case of Ford v. St. Jude Medical, LLC, No. 3:21-CV-01765 (M.D. Pa. Sept. 23, 2024 Mehalchick, J.), the court granted in part and denied in part the Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss.

The case involved allegations that the Plaintiff fell when his pacemaker device failed.  

The court ruled that Pennsylvania law does not permit strict liability claims in prescription medical product liability litigation against medical device manufacturers. This prohibition includes strict liability design and manufacturing claims.

Judge Mehalchick additionally ruled that the Plaintiff’s claims of an implied warranty based upon different or additional Pennsylvania medical device standards were preempted. The court additionally noted that, even if these claims were not preempted, such claims would also be barred by the Restatement of Torts (Second) §402a, comment k.

Judge Mehalchick additionally ruled that a loss of consortium claim cannot be based on a contractual claim for breach of an express warranty.

Anyone wishing to review a copy of this decision may click this LINK.  The Court's companion Order can be viewed at this LINK.


I send thanks to Attorney James M. Beck of the Philadelphia office of Reed Smith law firm for bringing this case to my attention.

Federal Court Addresses Viability of Products Liability Claims Involving Medical Devices

In the case of Douglas v. Atrium Medical Corp., No. 3:23-CV-747-JKM (M.D. Pa. Sept. 30, 2024 Munley, J.), the court granted in part and denied in part a Motion to Dismiss after finding that settled Pennsylvania law did not allow for strict liability claims in a products liability litigation relative to claims involving prescription drugs and medical devices.

The case arose out of issues regarding the use of a hernia mesh as treatment.   

Judge Munley also denied the request for a certification of the strict liability issues for an interlocutory appeal because there was no substantial ground for a difference of opinion on this decision.

Anyone wishing to review a copy of this decision may click this LINK.

I send thanks to Attorney James M. Beck of the Philadelphia office of Reed Smith law firm for bringing this case to my attention.

Souce of image:  Photo by Vidatl Balielo, Jr. on www.pexels.com.

Need CLE Credits? Presenting on Settlement Strategies and Tips

 

Will be presenting "Settlement Strategies & Tips 2024" for the Pennsylvania Bar Institute (PBI) via a Live Webcast on November 6, 2024 at 1 p.m. with other panelists. 

This two-hour long CLE is designed to provide the audience with tips from Mediators and Arbitrators from around the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania to improve chances for success at such ADR proceedings.

The presenters are Daniel E. Cummins, Esq., Paul Oven, Esq., and John Noble Esq.

The program offers two substantive CLE credits.

Here is a LINK to the registration page for this CLE if you are interested.

Need Even More CLE Credits? Presenting At Upcoming November 7, 2024 Luzerne County Bench Bar Conference

 Need any CLE Credits?

Daniel E. Cummins, Esq. of Cummins Law will be presenting "Practice Tips Based on the Top Civil Litigation Cases of 2024" along with Paul T. Oven of Dougherty, Leventhal & Price on November 7, 2024 at the Mohegan Sun Casino in Plains, PA.

Here is a LINK to the Agenda for the event.

Non-members welcome to attend.

For details on how to register to attend this CLE event, please click this LINK.

U.S. Supreme Court Confirms When Stay Provisions of Federal Arbitration Act Apply

In the United States Supreme Court decision of Smith v. Spizzirri, 601 U.S. 472 (2024), the Court held that, when a federal district court finds that a lawsuit involves an arbitrable dispute, and a party requests a stay pending arbitration, Section 3 of the Federal Arbitration Act, 9 USCS §3, compels the court to stay the proceeding.

The United States Supreme Court additionally held that a federal district court judge does not have discretion to dismiss the suit on the basis that the claims are subject to arbitration.

Anyone wishing to review a copy of this decision may click this LINK.


I send thanks to Attorney Thomas J. Foley, III of the Foley Law Firm in Scranton, PA for bringing this case to my attention.

Source of image:  Photo by Adam Michael Szuscik on www.unsplash.com.

  

If A Defendant Fails to Appear For Trial, A Plaintiff Still Must Prove Case

In the case of Zappacosta v. McAvoy, No. 2024 Pa. Super. 225 (Pa. Super. Sept. 27, 2024 Panella, P.J.E., Beck, J., Colins, J.) (Op. by Colins, J.), the court addressed the entry of a default judgment against a Defendant in a breach of contract case, which default was entered due to the Defendant’s failure to appear at trial.

On appeal, the court noted that the trial court had erred in denying a motion by the Defendant to strike a default judgment.

In so ruling, the Superior Court reviewed the parameters of Pa.R.C.P. 218 which covers the actions a trial court may take if a party fails to appear at trial without a satisfactory excuse.   

The court noted that, since Pa. R.C.P. 218 did not permit a trial court to enter a judgment for failure of a Defendant to appear without requiring the Plaintiff to prove the Plaintiff’s case, it was an error of the trial court to deny the Defendant’s Motion to Strike the Default Judgment that was entered due to the Defendant’s failure to appear.

Anyone wishing to review a copy of this decision may click this LINK.


Source: “Court Summaries” by Timothy L. Clawges, Pennsylvania Bar News (Oct. 21, 2024).

Berks County Trial Court Judge Denies Motions to Bifurcate Post-Koken Case

In the case of Sekulski v. Walker and Erie Ins. Exch., No. 19-14211 (C.P. Berks Co. Sept. 17, 2024 Nevius, J.), the Berks County Court of Common Pleas denied the Motion to Sever filed by both the third party Defendant and the UIM carrier Defendant in a Post-Koken motor vehicle accident case.

The court ruled that the third party tort liability claim would be tried jointly with the Plaintiff’s first party claim for underinsured motorist benefits, with Erie Insurance identified as a real party and interest to those proceedings.

In its detailed Order, the court noted that the Plaintiff’s claim against all Defendants arose from the same factual background and involved common questions of law and fact. 

As such, the court noted that judicial economy favored one trial of all claims. The court was also influenced by the fact that a severance of the case into two separate matters or trial would result in an undue hardship and burden on the Plaintiffs who would be required to present their case twice at a presumed substantial cost and with additional delays.

The court also noted a concern with the likelihood of possible inconsistent verdicts.

The court also rejected the tortfeasor Defendant’s argument that having a UIM carrier as a Co-Defendant would prejudice that Defendant in light of the anticipated repeated references to insurance at the trial in front of the jury.  Judge Nevius noted that there would be no reference to the tortfeasor’s liability insurance.   The court additionally noted that it could craft jury instructions to address any concerns about possible prejudice in this regard.

Judge Nevius additionally noted that this decision did not address the bifurcation of any potential bad faith claims given that it did not appear that any such claims were at issue in this matter.

Anyone wishing to review a copy of this decision may click this LINK.

I send thanks to Attorney Peter F. Schuchman and Attorney Julia Adams of the Wyomissing, PA office of Kozloff Stoudt for bringing this case to my attention.