Chapman v. DePuy Orthopedics, Inc.
2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 4510
| M.D. Fla. | 2011Background
- Chapman, the plaintiff, sued DePuy Orthopaedics, Inc. for damages from a May 1995 hip-replacement device.
- The fatigue fracture occurred in December 2006, leading to February 2007 surgery and renewed treatment.
- Chapman filed suit on June 22, 2009, alleging negligent design and negligent manufacture of the hip component.
- DePuy moved for summary judgment on timeliness and lack of expert disclosure under Rule 26(a) and court orders.
- The court applied Florida choice-of-law rules to determine which state's statute of limitations applies.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Which state's statute of limitations governs | Florida choice-of-law rules apply Florida statute | Virginia has the governing statute due to most significant relationship | Virginia law applies; Virginia two-year statute bars the claim |
| Accrual of the claim under Virginia law | Discovery date relevant to accrual should toll | Accrual occurs when injury sustains, regardless of discovery | Accrual occurred by December 4, 2006; suit filed 2009 is untimely |
| Whether the Virginia statute of limitations should bar the action | Florida four-year period should apply due to Florida residency | Virginia statute governs due to most significant relationship | Virginia two-year limit applies and bars Chapman’s claims |
| Impact of lack of expert reports on viability of claims | Plaintiff seeks discovery and expert disclosure | No expert reports were disclosed; claims unsupported | Court need not address due to merits resolved on timeliness |
Key Cases Cited
- Celotex Corp. v. Meehan, 523 So.2d 141 (Fla.1988) (injury diagnosis in second state insufficient to control; most significant relationship governs)
- Futch v. Ryder Truck Rental, Inc., 391 So.2d 808 (Fla.5th DCA 1980) (place of injury is often not controlling in choice-of-law)
- Nance v. Eagle Picher Indus., 559 So.2d 93 (Fla.3d DCA 1990) (only relationship can govern where injury manifests elsewhere)
- Bishop v. Fla. Specialty Paint Co., 389 So.2d 999 (Fla.1980) (most significant relationship governs choice of law when true conflict exists)
- Grupo Televisa, S.A. v. Telemundo Communs. Group, Inc., 485 F.3d 1233 (11th Cir.2007) (conflict of laws analyzed using Restatement factors)
- Telemundo Communications Group, Inc. v. Grupo Televisa, 485 F.3d 1233 (11th Cir.2007) (provided framework for §145(2) factors in choice of law)
- Smith v. Danek Med., Inc., 47 F. Supp. 2d 698 (W.D. Va.1998) (statute accrues on injury date for Virginia-based analysis)
- Castillo v. Cessna Aircraft Co., 712 F. Supp. 2d 1306 (S.D. Fla.2010) (treats choice-of-law for statute of limitations as substantive)
- Merble v. Robinson, 737 So.2d 540 (Fla.1999) (treats statute of limitations question similarly to substantive choice)