Gregory Kline v. Zimmer Holdings Inc
662 F. App'x 121
| 3rd Cir. | 2016Background
- Plaintiff Gregory Kline received a total hip replacement with a Zimmer femoral stem (Kinectiv Technology) in January 2010; the stem fractured at the neck in April 2011.
- Kline sued Zimmer (several corporate defendants) asserting state-law negligent design and negligent failure-to-warn claims; wife asserted derivative loss-of-consortium claim.
- District Court granted summary judgment to Zimmer on all claims; Kline appealed.
- To survive summary judgment under Pennsylvania law, Kline had to show Zimmer acted unreasonably (breach) and that any unreasonable act was a substantial factor causing his harm.
- Kline relied on expert reports (Mari Truman, Dr. Donald Koss, metallurgy expert) and two post‑report affidavits referencing another patient’s device failure; the court found those affidavits immaterial and experts’ theories unsupported by record evidence.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Zimmer negligently designed the stem | Kline’s experts: testing inadequate; wrong surface treatment/material; multimodular design and offset/size were dangerous; stem inherently flawed | Zimmer: no evidence design choices were unreasonable or that alternatives reduced risk more than utility | Affirmed for Zimmer — plaintiff failed to show unreasonableness or risk–utility proof supporting design defect |
| Whether Zimmer negligently failed to warn about risks for heavy/active patients | Truman: warnings should have contraindicated device for specific weights/BMIs/activity levels (competitor did so) | Zimmer: package insert warned in general terms about heavy/active patients; no record showing specific thresholds or that contraindication was required | Affirmed for Zimmer — expert opinion lacked factual foundation to create genuine issue about adequacy of warnings |
| Admissibility/relevance of another patient’s device failure | Kline: affidavits describing another patient’s stem failure show notice/existence/causation | Zimmer: other failure occurred after Kline’s implant and lacked similar circumstances or causal theory; therefore inadmissible | Affirmed — evidence not admissible or probative because not same product/circumstances and no causation theory |
| Whether post‑report affidavits/sham‑affidavit issues create triable issues | Kline: affidavits supplement expert testimony and raise factual disputes | Zimmer: affidavits do not advance reasonableness or causation and some may be sham | Court need not resolve sham‑affidavit standard; affidavits do not defeat summary judgment |
Key Cases Cited
- Doe v. Luzerne County, 660 F.3d 169 (3d Cir.) (summary‑judgment standard review)
- J.S. ex rel. Snyder v. Blue Mountain Sch. Dist., 650 F.3d 915 (3d Cir.) (plaintiff must produce evidence for each element at trial)
- Metzgar v. Playskool, Inc., 30 F.3d 459 (3d Cir.) (risk–utility analysis in negligent design)
- Gumbs v. Int’l Harvester, Inc., 718 F.2d 88 (3d Cir.) (admissibility of other‑accident evidence requires similar product/circumstances or causation/notice)
- Tincher v. Omega Flex, Inc., 104 A.3d 328 (Pa.) (discussion of risk–utility framework)
- Lance v. Wyeth, 85 A.3d 434 (Pa.) (when product is so dangerous it should not be marketed)
- Advo, Inc. v. Phila. Newspapers, Inc., 51 F.3d 1191 (3d Cir.) (expert testimony without factual foundation cannot defeat summary judgment)