Johnson v. Medtronic, Inc.
365 S.W.3d 226
Mo. Ct. App.2012Background
- Jeffrey Johnson suffered atrial fibrillation; LifePak 9P defibrillator used for synchronized cardioversion by Dr. Hahn.
- LifePak 9P defaults to asynchronous mode after each synchronized shock; synchronous mode must be reselected for subsequent shocks.
- Dr. Hahn did not verify synchronous mode before the second shock, delivering a nonsynchronized shock and causing ventricular fibrillation.
- Johnsons alleged the LifePak 9P was defectively designed and inadequately warned about automatic reversion to asynchronous mode and lack of audible/observable alerts.
- Court granted Medtronic summary judgment on failure to warn; summary judgment granted to defense on product defect claim was reversed and remanded; cross-appeal denied.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Johnsons proved proximate cause for failure to warn | Warning would have altered Hahn's behavior; Johnsons relied on warnings. | Hahn didn't read or follow warnings; warnings could not have changed outcome. | Summary judgment proper for failure to warn |
| Whether LifePak 9P design defect claim should be dismissed at summary judgment | Device lacked active safeguards; failure to warn is tied to defect. | Manufacturer not required to eliminate all risk; physician misuse breaks causation. | Issues of material fact precluded summary judgment; remand for product defect claim |
| Whether the trial court properly addressed expert/usability-study challenges on cross-appeal | Experts and usability data support defect claim; cross-appeal should prevail. | Experts/usability studies should be excluded as unreliable. | Issues remain open on remand; cross-appeal denied insofar as it supports judgment |
Key Cases Cited
- Nesselrode v. Executive Beechcraft, Inc., 707 S.W.2d 371 (Mo. banc 1986) (warnings and instructions must effectively communicate danger)
- Moore v. Ford Motor Co., 332 S.W.3d 749 (Mo. banc 2011) (design defect vs. failure to warn distinguished; causation standards)
- Chronister v. Bryco Arms, 125 F.3d 624 (8th Cir. 1997) (use of product contrary to warnings may still be reasonably anticipated use)
- Crump v. Versa Prods., Inc., 400 F.3d 1104 (8th Cir. 2005) (misuse reasonably foreseeable; design defect considerations in use contexts)
- Arnold v. Ingersoll-Rand Co., 834 S.W.2d 192 (Mo. banc 1992) (warning adequacy and consumer expectations in failure to warn)
- Peters v. Judd Drugs, Inc., 602 N.E.2d 162 (Ind. App. 3 Dist. 1992) (label warnings and mislabeling principles in failure to warn)