Lyles v. Medtronic Sofamor Danek, USA, Inc.
2017 U.S. App. LEXIS 17534
| 5th Cir. | 2017Background
- In May 2013 Bryant Lyles underwent anterior cervical corpectomy/discectomy; a Medtronic Verte-Stack implant, Progenix bone putty, and an Atlantis anterior cervical plate (all manufactured by Medtronic Sofamor Danek, USA, Inc. (MSD)) were implanted.
- Postoperative imaging and later assessment differ: Lyles’s experts say the Atlantis Plate separated/broke soon after surgery; treating physicians dispute breakage and attribute symptoms to failed fusion and possible surgical factors.
- Lyles sued MSD under the Louisiana Products Liability Act (LPLA) asserting defective design and defective construction of the Atlantis Plate (Infuse claims were dismissed and not appealed).
- MSD moved for summary judgment arguing Lyles could not identify an alternative design nor show a construction deviation from MSD’s specifications; Lyles invoked res ipsa loquitur for the first time in opposition to summary judgment.
- The district court granted summary judgment on the Atlantis Plate claims (March 23, 2016). While the appeal was pending, Lyles moved under Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b)(2) and (3) seeking relief based on allegedly newly discovered documents about Verte-Stack/Progenix and alleging discovery misconduct; the district court denied relief and this denial was also appealed.
- The Fifth Circuit affirmed both the grant of summary judgment and the denial of Rule 60 relief, concluding Lyles failed to (1) exclude other reasonable causes so as to invoke res ipsa loquitur and (2) show diligence or clear-and-convincing proof of misconduct regarding the allegedly withheld documents.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Lyles) | Defendant's Argument (MSD) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Applicability of res ipsa loquitur to infer a manufacturing/construction defect in the Atlantis Plate | Res ipsa applies because the timing and nature of the Plate separation permit the inference that only a manufacturing/construction defect explains the failure | Lyles cannot exclude other reasonable causes (e.g., surgical malpractice, access by others, product warnings); no evidence of deviation from MSD specifications | Court: Res ipsa not proper — Lyles failed to exclude other reasonable explanations and produced no evidence of deviation from manufacturer specs; summary judgment affirmed |
| Whether Atlantis Plate was defective when it left MSD’s control | Implicitly argues manufacturing defect caused breakage at/near implantation | MSD: No evidence where Plate was stored or who had access after leaving manufacturer; cannot show defect at time it left manufacturer’s control | Court: Even if res ipsa applied, Lyles failed to show the product was defective at time it left manufacturer’s control; alternative ground for affirmance |
| Is the medical-review-panel request a pleading/evidence showing surgeon malpractice that defeats res ipsa inference | Argues the request supports a plausible alternative (surgeon malpractice) but also contends it does not preclude res ipsa | MSD and court: The medical-review request is evidence of a possible alternative cause that Lyles needed to exclude | Court: District court did not err in treating the document as evidence of a reasonable alternative explanation; harmless even if treated differently |
| Rule 60(b)(2) and (3) relief based on allegedly withheld Verte-Stack/Progenix documents | Documents were newly discovered or intentionally withheld by MSD and would have changed the outcome | MSD: Documents were about other products; plaintiff was aware of Verte-Stack/Progenix and failed to pursue/compel discovery; no clear-and-convincing evidence of misconduct | Court: Denial of Rule 60 relief affirmed — Lyles lacked due diligence for newly discovered evidence and failed to prove misconduct by clear and convincing evidence |
Key Cases Cited
- Amerisure Ins. Co. v. Navigators Ins. Co., 611 F.3d 299 (5th Cir.) (standard of review for summary judgment on appeal)
- In re Placid Oil Co., 932 F.2d 394 (5th Cir. 1991) (permissible limited inference-drawing by a trial judge at summary judgment in bench trials)
- Lawson v. Mitsubishi Motor Sales of Am., Inc., 938 So.2d 35 (La.) (elements and limits of applying res ipsa loquitur in products cases)
- State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v. Wrap-On Co., Inc., 626 So.2d 874 (La. Ct. App.) (res ipsa appropriate where no other reasonable explanation existed)
- Ayala v. Enerco Grp., Inc., [citation="569 F. App'x 241"] (5th Cir.) (res ipsa inapplicable where plaintiff cannot exclude other potential causes)
- Hesling v. CSX Transp. Inc., 396 F.3d 632 (5th Cir.) (standard for appellate review of a district court's denial of Rule 60(b) relief)
- Goldstein v. MCI WorldCom, 340 F.3d 238 (5th Cir.) (elements for Rule 60(b)(2) newly discovered evidence relief)
- Pease v. Pakhoed Corp., 980 F.2d 995 (5th Cir.) (denial of Rule 60(b) reversed only for abuse of discretion)