Maness v. Boston Scientific
751 F. Supp. 2d 962
E.D. Tenn.2010Background
- This case was removed from state court to federal court on diversity grounds; the court has subject-matter jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1332, 1441.
- Plaintiff alleges injuries from a spinal cord stimulation device implanted in 2007 and removed after a 2009 recall-related issue.
- The device, IPG SC-1110 by Advanced Bionics/Boston Scientific, faced recall in Feb. 2008 and related safety notices in 2007.
- Plaintiff asserts product liability theories including defective design, defective manufacturing, and failure to warn.
- Defendants moved to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6) arguing the pleading fails to meet Twombly/Iqbal plausibility standards and the Tennessee Product Liability Act requirements.
- The court granted dismissal with leave to amend, finding the complaint failed to allege a defect or a causal link to injury under the applicable law.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Twombly/Iqbal apply to removed state-law claims | Plaintiff argues Tennessee pleading standards apply. | Twombly/Iqbal apply to all federal civil actions, including removed state-law claims. | Twombly/Iqbal apply to all federal cases, including removed state-law claims. |
| Whether the complaint plausibly alleges a product defect under the Tennessee Product Liability Act | Plaintiff asserts device was defective and unreasonably dangerous. | Plaintiff fails to allege facts showing defect or dangerous condition. | Complaint does not plausibly allege defect or unreasonably dangerous condition. |
| Whether the plaintiff alleged a sufficient causal link between the device defect and injuries | Injury from device supports liability under product liability theories. | No factual link shown between a defect and plaintiff’s injuries. | Plaintiff failed to plead facts showing causation. |
| Whether the recall and notices support liability or recovery | Recall indicates dangerous condition that should have injured plaintiff. | Recalls/notices do not establish defect or causation absent specific connections to plaintiff. | Recall/notice facts insufficient to sustain plausibile claims. |
Key Cases Cited
- Twombly v. Bell Atl. Corp., 550 U.S. 544 (U.S. 2007) (plausibility standard applies to all federal civil cases)
- Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (U.S. 2009) (plausibility standard governs pleading sufficiency)
- Directv, Inc. v. Treesh, 487 F.3d 471 (6th Cir. 2007) (court must construe complaint in plaintiff’s favor at 12(b)(6) stage)
- King v. Danek Med., Inc., 37 S.W.3d 429 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2000) (to establish product liability under the Tennessee Act, the product must be defective or unreasonably dangerous when left the manufacturer’s control)
- Browder v. Pettigrew, 541 S.W.2d 402 (Tenn. 1976) (injury alone does not prove defect; must trace injury to a defect)
- Frey v. Novartis Pharm. Corp., 642 F. Supp. 2d 787 (S.D. Ohio 2009) (dismissal for failure to plead plausible design/manufacturing defect under Twombly)
- Evridge v. Am. Honda Motor Co., 685 S.W.2d 632 (Tenn. 1985) (adequate warning standard; defect/dangerous condition required for liability)