Skinner v. 3M Company

Background

This case is part of a multi-district litigation (MDL) — a procedure that consolidates many similar federal lawsuits before one judge — concerning the Bair Hugger Forced Air Warming system, a device used to maintain patient body temperature during surgery. Plaintiff George Skinner, an Iowa resident, underwent left total knee arthroplasty (knee replacement surgery) in October 2011 at Trinity Regional Health System in Bettendorf, Iowa, during which the Bair Hugger was used. In March 2012, he was diagnosed with a periprosthetic joint infection (an infection around a joint implant). He underwent surgery in April 2012 to remove his knee implant and place an antibiotic spacer, and another surgery in July 2012 to remove the spacer and install a new prosthesis. Skinner alleged that contaminants introduced by the Bair Hugger caused his infection and the resulting surgeries.

Skinner filed this lawsuit in June 2017 — approximately five years after his last corrective surgery — against 3M Company and Arizant Healthcare, Inc. (collectively, "Defendants"). He asserted fourteen claims: negligence; strict liability for failure to warn; strict liability for defective design and manufacture; breach of express warranty; breach of implied warranty of merchantability; violations of four Minnesota consumer-protection statutes; consumer fraud and deceptive trade practices under Iowa law; negligent misrepresentation; fraudulent misrepresentation; fraudulent concealment; and unjust enrichment.

Procedural Posture

Defendants moved for summary judgment on all claims on seven grounds, and separately moved to exclude the expert opinions and testimony of Skinner's expert, Dr. Yoav Golan. In response, Skinner stipulated to dismissal of ten of his claims: breach of express warranty, breach of implied warranty, all four Minnesota consumer-protection claims, Iowa fraud, negligent misrepresentation, fraudulent misrepresentation, and fraudulent concealment. His remaining claims were negligence, strict liability for failure to warn, strict liability for defective design and manufacture, and unjust enrichment (along with a claim for punitive damages). The Court addressed the statute-of-limitations (time limit for filing suit) argument first and found it dispositive.

Legal Standard: Summary Judgment

Summary judgment is appropriate when there is no genuine dispute about any fact that matters to the outcome, and the moving party is entitled to win as a matter of law. Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(a). The court must view disputed facts in the light most favorable to the non-moving party — here, Skinner.

Analysis: Iowa's Statute of Limitations and the Discovery Rule

Iowa law imposes a two-year statute of limitations on personal-injury claims. Iowa Code § 614.1(2). Under Iowa's "discovery rule," the two-year clock does not start running on the date of the injury itself, but rather when the plaintiff discovers — or with reasonable diligence should have discovered — the injury giving rise to the claim. The Iowa Supreme Court has explained that "inquiry notice" is triggered when a person gains sufficient knowledge of facts to put a reasonable person on notice that a problem or potential problem exists; once on inquiry notice, the person is charged with knowledge of what a diligent investigation would have revealed. Critically, the duty to investigate does not require exact knowledge of what caused the injury — awareness that a problem exists is enough. Because the discovery rule is an exception to the normal limitations period, the plaintiff bears the burden of proving it applies.

Skinner argued that a reasonable jury could find he did not discover a causal connection between his injuries and the Bair Hugger until 2016, when his medical records first revealed that the device had been used in his surgery. He contended that: he was unaware the Bair Hugger was used; his surgeon did not specifically recall its use; no doctor ever told him the device caused his infection; he never sought out online information about the device; and the scattered online information connecting the Bair Hugger to infections was insufficient to put him on notice.

Judge Ericksen rejected this argument. Viewing the record in the light most favorable to Skinner, the Court concluded that by March 2012 — when Skinner was diagnosed with the joint infection and began undergoing significant corrective surgeries — he had sufficient facts to trigger a duty to investigate under Iowa law. At that point, he could have requested his medical records, consulted with medical professionals, or sought legal assistance to discover what device was used and whether it was defective. He did none of these things for approximately four years. The Court held that the limitations period did not wait for Skinner to actually review his records in June 2016, and that his lawsuit filed in June 2017 was therefore untimely — more than two years after the point at which reasonable diligence would have started the clock. The Court cited Ranney v. Parawax Co. and Sparks v. Metalcraft, Inc. as supporting authority.

Motion to Exclude Expert Testimony

Because the Court found the entire action time-barred and granted summary judgment on that basis, it denied as moot Defendants' motion to exclude the expert opinions and testimony of Dr. Yoav Golan. A denial as moot means the court made no ruling on the merits of the exclusion motion.

Disposition