Davis v. Boston Scientific Corporation
2:17-cv-00682
| M.D. Fla. | May 11, 2018Background
- Plaintiff Felicia Davis had a Greenfield permanent IVC filter (manufactured by Boston Scientific) implanted in 2005 and later suffered bilateral segmental pulmonary emboli and deep vein thrombosis.
- Davis sued Boston Scientific alleging the Greenfield Filter was defectively designed and manufactured, inadequately tested, and accompanied by inadequate warnings; she asserted negligence, strict liability (design, manufacturing, failure to warn), warranty and multiple fraud-based claims, FDUTPA violations, and sought punitive damages.
- After removal to federal court, Davis filed an Amended Complaint following an initial dismissal for shotgun pleading; the Amended Complaint added factual allegations and claims but Boston Scientific moved to dismiss.
- Boston Scientific challenged the Amended Complaint as a shotgun pleading, argued many claims were insufficiently pleaded (including fraud-based claims under Rule 9(b) and warranty claims for lack of privity), and contended FDUTPA did not apply to personal injury claims.
- The Court denied dismissal for negligence and strict liability claims (design, manufacturing, and failure-to-warn) and allowed punitive damages allegations to proceed at this stage; it granted dismissal for breach of warranties (Counts V–VII), fraudulent misrepresentation, fraudulent concealment, negligent misrepresentation (Counts VIII–X), and the FDUTPA claim (Count XI).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the Amended Complaint is an impermissible shotgun pleading | Davis narrowed and repleaded claims; allegations put defendant on notice | Complaint still contains surplusage and is hard to parse | Not a shotgun pleading; complaint survives on that ground |
| Negligence (Count I) | Boston Scientific owed duties in design, testing, marketing and failed to exercise reasonable care causing injury | Alleged duty element is insufficiently pleaded | Negligence claim plausible; Count I survives |
| Strict liability — Design & Manufacturing (Counts II–III) | Filter was unreasonably dangerous (breakage, migration, perforation, thrombus); removable alternative existed | Pleading fails to identify which component or why dangerous | Sufficient under consumer-expectation and risk-utility tests; Counts II–III survive |
| Strict liability — Failure to warn (Count IV) | Company knew/should have known risks and failed to warn physicians and patients; warnings were downplayed | Warnings were adequate; learned intermediary doctrine not satisfied | Adequately pled; learned intermediary satisfied as allegations target physicians; Count IV survives |
| Breach of warranties (Counts V–VII) | Plaintiff relied on brochure/website/ads | No privity between manufacturer and plaintiff/physician | Dismissed for lack of privity |
| Fraudulent misrepresentation and related fraud claims (Counts VIII–X) | Company made false statements and concealed risks, inducing reliance | Claims fail to meet Rule 9(b) particularity; many statements are puffery or lack specifics | Dismissed: allegations lack the required particularity and factual specificity |
| FDUTPA (Count XI) | Marketing omissions and deceptive acts caused implantation and injury | FDUTPA does not apply to personal injury claims | Dismissed: FDUTPA excludes claims for personal injury or death |
| Punitive damages | Allegations of knowledge and reckless indifference support punitive relief | Insufficient to plead intentional misconduct/gross negligence | Permitted to proceed at this stage; punitive damages allegations survive |
Key Cases Cited
- Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (plausibility standard for pleadings)
- Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (pleading must contain more than conclusory allegations)
- Weiland v. Palm Beach Cty. Sheriff’s Office, 792 F.3d 1313 (11th Cir. 2015) (definition and types of shotgun pleadings)
- Bailey v. Janssen Pharmaceutica, Inc., [citation="288 F. App'x 597"] (11th Cir. 2008) (surplusage alone does not doom a complaint under Rule 8)
- Aubin v. Union Carbide Corp., 177 So. 3d 489 (Fla. 2015) (consumer-expectation and risk-utility tests for product danger)
- Butler v. Yusem, 44 So. 3d 102 (Fla. 2010) (elements of fraud and limits on reliance)
- Felix v. Hoffmann-LaRoche, Inc., 540 So. 2d 102 (Fla. 1989) (learned intermediary doctrine for medical products)
- Cintron v. Osmose Wood Preserving, Inc., 681 So. 2d 859 (Fla. 1996) (elements of strict products liability)