46 F.4th 757
8th Cir.2022Background
- In 2007 Nicholson received a Biomet M2a Magnum metal-on-metal hip implant; she developed pain, a cyst, elevated chromium levels, and was diagnosed with metallosis and implant loosening; a revision to a metal-on-poly device relieved symptoms.
- Nicholson sued Biomet in the MDL litigation, alleging (among other claims) defective design and seeking punitive damages; the district court granted summary judgment to Biomet on most claims but left the design-defect and punitive-damages claims for trial.
- At trial Nicholson relied on expert testimony (including post-2007 revision-rate data for metal-on-metal devices) to show the M2a Magnum’s design caused her injuries and that reasonable alternative designs existed.
- The jury found the M2a Magnum defectively designed, awarded $1,050,000 in compensatory damages and $2,500,000 in punitive damages, and the district court denied Biomet’s post-trial motions for a new trial and JMOL.
- On appeal Biomet challenged (1) evidentiary rulings admitting post-2007 causation evidence while excluding certain 2007-era MAUDE data and rebuttal evidence; (2) admission of portions of expert testimony; (3) the refusal to instruct the jury that warnings were adequate as a matter of law; and (4) the punitive-damages verdict.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Admission of post-2007 metal-on-metal data for causation and exclusion of Biomet's 2007 MAUDE data | Nicholson: post-2007 data is probative of causation (that metal-on-metal design causes the injuries she suffered) | Biomet: post-2007 data irrelevant to design at time of sale; MAUDE data showing few 2007 complaints should have been admitted to show reasonableness | Court: post-2007 data admissible for causation with limiting instruction; exclusion of MAUDE data (even if error) was harmless. |
| Whether Nicholson "opened the door" to Biomet’s excluded rebuttal (Dr. Li’s revisions and M2a post-market data) | Nicholson: expert evidence did not open door to unrelated post-market success evidence | Biomet: expert reliance on later data allowed rebuttal showing M2a performed well | Court: doctrine of opening the door did not permit that evidence because it did not actually rebut causation-focused testimony. |
| Admissibility/scope of expert testimony (Truman and Dr. Kantor) | Nicholson: Truman (biomedical engineer) and Kantor (orthopedist) provided admissible opinions within their fields relying on medical literature; limitations and limiting instructions addressed overlaps | Biomet: Truman opined on clinical effects of metal ions beyond her expertise; Kantor improperly testified about ethics/criminality and counsel referenced that in closing | Court: testimony admissible as offered (Truman relied on medical literature under Rule 703; limiting instructions mitigated risk); Kantor’s testimony (and counsel’s remarks) were not shown to have prejudiced the verdict. |
| Punitive damages (JMOL) | Nicholson: evidence (internal emails, consultant warnings, failure to conduct clinical testing) supports willful and wanton conduct allowing punitive damages | Biomet: adequate warnings and lack of actionable knowledge preclude punitive damages as a matter of law | Court: viewing evidence in plaintiff’s favor, a reasonable jury could find willful/wanton disregard; JMOL denied. |
Key Cases Cited
- Wright v. Brooke Grp. Ltd., 652 N.W.2d 159 (Iowa 2002) (adopts Restatement (Third) standard for design-defect claims: need reasonable alternative design that would have reduced foreseeable risk)
- Mercer v. Pittway Corp., 616 N.W.2d 602 (Iowa 2000) (defines "willful and wanton" for punitive damages under Iowa law)
- Fell v. Kewanee Farm Equip. Co., 457 N.W.2d 911 (Iowa 1990) (discusses threshold for punitive damages where risk not highly probable)
- White v. McKinley, 605 F.3d 525 (8th Cir. 2010) (abuse-of-discretion standard and harmless-error principles for evidentiary/jury-instruction review)
- Russell v. Anderson, 966 F.3d 711 (8th Cir. 2020) (harmless-exclusion analysis: reversal only if jury likely substantially swayed)
- Valadez v. Watkins Motor Lines, Inc., 758 F.3d 975 (8th Cir. 2014) (limits scope of "opening the door" doctrine for otherwise inadmissible evidence)
- Dura Auto. Sys. of Ind., Inc. v. CTS Corp., 285 F.3d 609 (7th Cir. 2002) (expert may not usurp testimony of a different specialty; reliance on other experts’ work addressed under Rule 703)
- Coterel v. Dorel Juv. Grp., Inc., 827 F.3d 804 (8th Cir. 2016) (prejudice inquiry for evidentiary error looks to whether error likely affected the jury’s verdict)