Judith Redd v. DePuy Orthopaedics
700 F. App'x 551
| 8th Cir. | 2017Background
- Judith Redd underwent a total hip replacement in 2008; due to risk factors (short stature, obesity, immunosuppressant drugs) the implant failed and the implanted stem fractured in 2012; a replacement stem also fractured within two years.
- Redd sued DePuy Orthopaedics in diversity court alleging manufacturing defect and failure to warn under Missouri law.
- Redd retained metallurgist Dr. Shankar Sastry, who opined the stem metal was in a non‑austenitic (HCP) phase with coarse grains causing a premature fatigue fracture; he did not analyze biomechanical forces or implant osseointegration and did not review manufacturing records before his report.
- DePuy moved to exclude portions of Dr. Sastry’s testimony under Rule 702/Daubert and for summary judgment; Redd later submitted an affidavit from Dr. Sastry that addressed DePuy’s specifications and downplayed environmental causes.
- The district court excluded the affidavit as contradicting deposition testimony and excluded Sastry’s causation/manufacturing‑defect opinions for lack of a factual basis (he failed to consider biomechanical/forces applied to the implant), then granted summary judgment for DePuy.
- Redd appealed the exclusion of the affidavit and expert testimony; the court of appeals affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether district court abused discretion excluding Sastry’s post‑discovery affidavit | Affidavit clarified, not contradicted, prior testimony and showed DePuy specs required austenitic material | Affidavit materially contradicted deposition (had not reviewed manufacturing records; changed position on environmental causes) | Exclusion affirmed — affidavit contradicted earlier testimony; exclusion not an abuse of discretion |
| Whether Sastry’s causation opinion was admissible under Rule 702/Daubert | Sastry’s metallurgical opinion that non‑austenitic phase caused fracture was reliable and need not rule out all other causes | Sastry failed to account for obvious alternative explanation (failed osseointegration/biomechanical forces); he did not analyze forces applied to the implant | Exclusion affirmed — expert did not reliably apply methods to facts or adequately address obvious alternatives |
| Whether federal Daubert/Rule 702 analysis should incorporate Missouri causation standard | Redd urged consideration of Missouri causation standard | DePuy argued admissibility is governed by Rule 702/Daubert regardless of state law on merits | Held: Rule 702 governs admissibility; Missouri law governs merits but does not alter Daubert analysis |
| Whether exclusion of Sastry’s testimony required grant of summary judgment on manufacturing defect | Sastry’s metallurgy opinion was the only expert causation proof | DePuy argued without admissible expert causation evidence Redd cannot prove a sophisticated injury’s cause | Summary judgment affirmed — without expert causation evidence, plaintiff cannot establish defect caused the fracture under Missouri law |
Key Cases Cited
- Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharm., 509 U.S. 579 (1993) (trial judges must ensure scientific testimony is relevant and reliable)
- Kuhn v. Wyeth, Inc., 686 F.3d 618 (8th Cir. 2012) (Rule 702 admissibility standards and abuse‑of‑discretion review)
- Lauzon v. Senco Prods., Inc., 270 F.3d 681 (8th Cir. 2001) (proponent must prove expert admissibility by a preponderance; excluding obvious alternatives undermines reliability)
- Gen. Elec. Co. v. Joiner, 522 U.S. 136 (1997) (abuse‑of‑discretion standard applies to exclusion even if summary judgment results)
- Cole v. Homier Distrib. Co., 599 F.3d 856 (8th Cir. 2010) (affidavit that contradicts prior sworn testimony cannot defeat summary judgment)
- Johnson v. Mead Johnson & Co., 754 F.3d 557 (8th Cir. 2014) (Rule 702, not state law, governs admissibility of expert reports)
- Pro Serv. Auto., LLC v. Lenan Corp., 469 F.3d 1210 (8th Cir. 2006) (plaintiff must show defect caused damages in strict products‑liability claim)
- Turner v. Iowa Fire Equip. Co., 229 F.3d 1202 (8th Cir. 2000) (causation for sophisticated injuries requires expert testimony)