Rocky Estes v. Lanx, Inc.
660 F. App'x 260
| 5th Cir. | 2016Background
- Estes received a Lanx Telluride spinal-fixation implant; months later screws fractured and the device was replaced.
- The removed, broken screws were not retained by the hospital or Lanx, so the physical evidence is unavailable for comparison to manufacturing specs.
- Estes sued Lanx in federal court under Mississippi tort law alleging a manufacturing defect and fraudulent concealment, among other claims.
- The district court granted summary judgment for Lanx on all claims and denied Estes’s motion to compel broad discovery (FDA pre-approval submissions and consumer complaints).
- Estes appealed the manufacturing-defect ruling (arguing spoliation/adverse inference), the fraudulent-concealment ruling (arguing it is not preempted by Buckman), and the denial of his motion to compel.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether missing screws permit adverse inference for manufacturing-defect claim (spoliation) | Estes: distributor present when screws went missing; court should draw adverse inference against Lanx | Lanx: no bad-faith spoliation; evidence absence alone insufficient | No adverse inference; district court didn’t abuse discretion; no bad faith shown |
| Whether fraudulent-concealment claim is impliedly preempted under Buckman | Estes: claim targets misrepresentations to doctors/patients, not FDA; state tort claim | Lanx: claim depends on FDCA/510(k) approval status and therefore conflicts with Buckman | Claim is impliedly preempted under Buckman; dismissed |
| Whether Estes can survive manufacturing-defect claim without actual manufacturing specifications | Estes: missing screws prevent usual comparison; adverse inference or other proof should suffice | Lanx: plaintiff must show deviation from specs; Estes produced no manufacturing-spec evidence | Plaintiff failed to show deviation; district court correctly ruled against defect claim |
| Whether district court abused discretion in denying motion to compel FDA submissions and consumer complaints | Estes: discovery of Telluride and Aspen pre-approval filings and complaints (2007–2013) relevant | Lanx: discovery overbroad and irrelevant given dismissal of fraud claim; district court discretion | Denial affirmed; no abuse of discretion |
Key Cases Cited
- Buckman Co. v. Plaintiffs’ Legal Comm., 531 U.S. 341 (2001) (state-law fraud claims that rest on FDCA disclosure requirements are impliedly preempted)
- Guzman v. Jones, 804 F.3d 707 (5th Cir. 2015) (spoliation adverse-inference standard reviewed for abuse of discretion)
- Condrey v. SunTrust Bank of Ga., 431 F.3d 191 (5th Cir. 2005) (adverse inference for spoliation requires showing of bad faith)
- Cooper Tire & Rubber Co. v. Tuckier, 826 So. 2d 679 (Miss. 2002) (plaintiff must show product deviated from manufacturing specifications to prove manufacturing defect)
- Lofton v. McNeil Consumer & Specialty Pharm., 672 F.3d 372 (5th Cir. 2012) (claims that exist solely by virtue of FDCA disclosure requirements are preempted under Buckman)
- Haase v. Countrywide Home Loans, Inc., 748 F.3d 624 (5th Cir. 2014) (district court’s discovery rulings reviewed for abuse of discretion)