Krantz v. Abbott Laboratories
1:25-cv-02934
| N.D. Ill. | Jul 30, 2025Background
- Karen Krantz sued Abbott Laboratories for injuries resulting from the Proclaim Neurostimulation System, an implantable device for chronic back pain.
- Krantz alleges she was introduced to the device in Tennessee by a sales representative who made misrepresentations about its safety.
- The device was implanted in 2021; subsequent complications included pain and nerve damage, leading Krantz to stop using and eventually remove the device in April 2024.
- She alleges claims for manufacturing defect, breach of implied warranties, failure to warn, and negligence.
- Abbott moved to dismiss, raising arguments including federal preemption, conclusory pleadings, and expiration of the statute of limitations.
- The central legal dispute centers on whether Krantz's claims are time-barred under Tennessee's one-year statute of limitations for product liability suits.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Choice of Law | Both Tennessee and Illinois law should apply due to acts in both states | Tennessee law applies; injury and implant were in Tennessee | Tennessee law applies |
| Timeliness under Statute of Limitations | Claims timely; discovery rule applies since she only recently realized legal claim | Claims untimely; Krantz knew of injuries by October 2023, filing was too late | Claims are time-barred |
| Discovery Rule Application | Limitations period starts upon awareness of the potential claim | Limitations period starts when injury is, or should be, discovered | Discovery rule inapplicable |
| Amendment of Complaint | (not argued) | Any amendment would be futile due to time bar | Dismissal with prejudice |
Key Cases Cited
- Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (U.S. 2007) (sets standard for plausibility in pleading under Rule 12(b)(6))
- Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (U.S. 2009) (discusses court's obligation to disregard conclusory allegations on a motion to dismiss)
- McCoy v. Iberdrola Renewables, Inc., 760 F.3d 674 (7th Cir. 2014) (federal courts use forum state's choice of law rules in diversity cases)
- Townsend v. Sears, Roebuck & Co., 879 N.E.2d 893 (Ill. 2007) (Illinois follows Second Restatement for choice of law questions)
- Potts v. Celotex Corp., 796 S.W.2d 678 (Tenn. 1990) (Tennessee law: cause of action accrues when injury is discovered)
- Redwing v. Cath. Bishop for Diocese of Memphis, 363 S.W.3d 436 (Tenn. 2012) (clarifies when Tennessee's discovery rule starts the limitation period)
- Cardenas v. City of Chicago, 646 F.3d 1001 (7th Cir. 2011) (amendment futile if claims are time-barred)