144 So. 3d 1066
La. Ct. App.2014Background
- Plaintiff Frank Raborn underwent a June 6, 2006 spinal fusion/laminectomy; later imaging showed a broken pedicle screw placed in that surgery. He had further procedures in March 2007 and an extensive corrective surgery on June 12, 2007 in Texas, where surgeon Dr. Blacklock used Medtronic’s InFUSE product off‑label.
- Raborn alleged post‑2007 complications (ectopic bone growth, neurological and bowel/bladder issues, Arachnoiditis, etc.) that he attributed to off‑label InFUSE use and to undisclosed risks by Medtronic.
- Raborn filed a medical review panel and earlier malpractice claims against his surgeons; the panel found no deviation from the standard of care.
- Raborn added a products‑liability claim against Medtronic in a Third Superseding Petition filed May 18, 2012 — nearly five years after the June 2007 surgery.
- Medtronic excepted on prescription and no‑cause‑of‑action grounds, introducing the InFUSE package insert (which warned of off‑label use risks and listed adverse events similar to Raborn’s complaints).
- The trial court sustained prescription and dismissed Raborn’s Medtronic claim; the court held (1) the products claim did not relate back to the original malpractice petition and (2) Raborn had constructive knowledge from the InFUSE labeling (and other publicly available information) so prescription began at the 2007 surgery. The court of appeal affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the products claim against Medtronic related back to original malpractice petition (interrupting prescription) | Raborn: second surgery and product claim arose from earlier malpractice (but‑for causation); relation back should apply | Medtronic: product claim arises from distinct conduct (off‑label device use in 2007) and original petition did not give fair notice | Held: No relation back—claims arise from different transactions; prescription not interrupted |
| Whether Raborn had constructive knowledge such that prescription began at 2007 surgery | Raborn: he lacked knowledge of a Medtronic cause of action when earlier petitions were filed and could not reasonably have sued Medtronic then | Medtronic: InFUSE labeling (available at surgery) warned of off‑label use and listed adverse events; plaintiff was on constructive notice | Held: Trial court not manifestly erroneous—labeling and facts put Raborn on notice in 2007; contra non valentem inapplicable |
| Whether Texas two‑year statute of limitations should apply instead of Louisiana one‑year prescriptive period | Raborn: surgery occurred in Texas so Texas limitation should govern | Medtronic: Louisiana law controls prescription per choice‑of‑law rule and (in any event) issue moot given prescription finding | Held: Moot — court affirmed prescription under Louisiana law because claim was already time‑barred under Louisiana rules |
| Whether evidence introduced on prescription exception required different standard of review | Raborn: factual dispute should preclude dismissal on exception | Medtronic: evidence (package insert) supports constructive notice; trial court findings reviewed for manifest error | Held: Appellate court applied manifest‑error review to trial court’s factual findings and found them reasonable |
Key Cases Cited
- Cole v. Celotex Corp., 620 So.2d 1154 (La. 1993) (damage accrual requires manifestation sufficient to support a cause of action)
- Reese v. State Dep’t of Pub. Safety & Corr., 866 So.2d 244 (La. 2004) (amendments relate back if original petition gave fair notice of factual situation)
- Bailey v. Khoury, 891 So.2d 1268 (La. 2005) (burden shifts to plaintiff when petition facially prescribed to prove interruption or suspension)
- Jordan v. Employee Transfer Corp., 509 So.2d 420 (La. 1987) (contra non valentem: prescription does not require filing against every possible defendant; reasonableness governs when prescription begins)
- Hogg v. Chevron USA, Inc., 45 So.3d 991 (La. 2010) (burden of proving prescription lies with party pleading it)