Canty v. DePuy Orthopaedics Inc.

Background

Richard Canty received a DePuy Pinnacle metal-on-metal hip implant during a total hip replacement performed by Dr. Christopher Chen on February 4, 2009. Dr. Chen had consulted for DePuy and testified that he generally used DePuy products because he considered them state-of-the-art. He also testified that he could not recall a specific statement or document from a DePuy sales representative on which he relied when recommending the implant.

About three years after the surgery, Mr. Canty developed stiffness and pain. In January 2013, he was diagnosed with a right hip infection and underwent revision procedures. The medical records and expert opinions described metal wear, metal debris, tissue damage, and infection. Mr. Canty and Betsy Canty asserted claims for negligence, strict products liability based on failure to warn and design defect, fraud and fraudulent concealment, negligent misrepresentation, breach of the implied warranty of merchantability, and loss of consortium.

Earlier ruling and scope of this order

On June 5, 2024, the court denied Defendants’ requests to exclude expert testimony under the evidence rule governing expert reliability and denied part of Defendants’ summary-judgment motion because factual disputes existed concerning medical causation. The court stated that the negligence claim, to the extent it was based on a design defect, and the related loss-of-consortium claim would proceed. This order addressed the remaining portions of Defendants’ motion and granted them.

Summary-judgment standard

Summary judgment is a decision without a trial when the evidence shows no genuine dispute about a fact that could affect the result and the moving party is entitled to judgment under the law. The court may not weigh evidence or decide which witnesses are credible. It must view the evidence and reasonable inferences in favor of the party opposing the motion. The party opposing the motion must identify significant evidence that could allow a reasonable fact finder to rule in its favor.

Strict-liability design defect and implied warranty

Plaintiffs did not respond to Defendants’ arguments concerning the strict-liability design-defect and implied-warranty claims. The court therefore concluded that Defendants were entitled to judgment on both claims. It cited decisions stating that California law precludes manufacturer liability for prescription medical devices under a design-defect theory and that a plaintiff lacking a required contractual relationship, or privity, could not sue for breach of the implied warranty of merchantability.

Failure to warn

The court addressed failure-to-warn claims under both negligence and strict-liability theories. Plaintiffs had to show that Defendants’ warning was inadequate and that the inadequate warning was a substantial factor in causing the harm. The court did not decide whether the warning was adequate because it concluded that Plaintiffs could not establish causation.

Under California’s learned-intermediary doctrine, a medical-device manufacturer’s duty to warn generally runs to the prescribing physician. A plaintiff may establish causation by showing that the physician would have changed course after receiving a stronger warning. The plaintiff may also show that the physician would have communicated the stronger warning and that a reasonably prudent patient would then have declined the treatment even if the physician continued recommending it.

The court found no evidence that Dr. Chen directly relied on Defendants’ safety materials before recommending the implant. Although his consulting relationship and participation on a surgeons’ panel might suggest that he could have learned about stronger warnings and communicated them to Mr. Canty, Plaintiffs did not show what Dr. Chen would have done in response to those warnings. His testimony that, at some unspecified later point, he could no longer justify using the implant did not establish what he would have done in 2009. The court also found no evidence showing what a reasonably prudent patient in Mr. Canty’s position would have done if Dr. Chen had continued recommending the implant. It therefore granted Defendants’ motion for summary judgment on the failure-to-warn claims and on Mrs. Canty’s associated loss-of-consortium claim.

Fraud and negligent misrepresentation

Reliance is an essential element of both fraud and negligent misrepresentation. For the reasons given in its failure-to-warn analysis, the court found that Plaintiffs had not shown genuine factual disputes on reliance. It granted Defendants’ motion for summary judgment on those claims and on Mrs. Canty’s associated loss-of-consortium claim.

Disposition

The court granted the remainder of Defendants’ motion for summary judgment. It ordered the parties to file a joint status report addressing a possible settlement conference and continued the pretrial conference, jury selection, and trial to dates in 2025. The previously preserved negligence claim based on a design defect remained set to proceed, as stated in the court’s earlier ruling.