Plaintiff v. Medical Device Company
Sedgwick obtained summary judgment on behalf of our client, a medical device company, in federal court in New York. The plaintiff received surgical screws manufactured by our client to facilitate the healing from fusion surgery on his ankle in two operations. The screws ultimately broke. The plaintiff alleged the screws were defective and their breakage necessitated further complex surgeries and left him with compromised ability to walk. Sedgwick challenged the methodology utilized by the plaintiff’s experts. The plaintiff's treating physicians all testified that the purpose of the screws was to facilitate fusion of bones. However, when fusion (healing) is delayed, as occurred in this case, stresses on the screws can cause them to break. This is not due to any defect in the design or manufacture of the screws. On motion, the district court analyzed admissions of the plaintiff’s expert in his deposition as well as submissions of defense experts and concluded the plaintiff’s expert evidence was unreliable and based on improper methodology and was therefore inadmissible requiring dismissal of all claims.