Rustico v. Intuitive Surgical, Inc.

Background

Jean Rustico underwent a hysterectomy on January 12, 2012. During the surgery, a tip cover on a da Vinci surgical system instrument malfunctioned and leaked electricity, injuring her aorta. The injury required an open surgical repair before the hysterectomy was completed. Jean and John Rustico later sued Intuitive Surgical, Inc., asserting claims including strict product liability, negligence, misrepresentation, fraud, breach of warranty, and loss of consortium.

The parties entered into a tolling agreement framework in 2013, and Jean Rustico was listed as a claimant under the agreement on February 3, 2014. The parties apparently extended the agreement several times. The Rusticos filed this lawsuit in April 2018.

Statute of Limitations and Choice of Law

Intuitive moved for summary judgment, which is a ruling without a trial when the record shows no genuine dispute about an important fact and the moving party is entitled to judgment under the law. Intuitive argued that all of the Rusticos’ claims were untimely. The Rusticos argued that Connecticut’s three-year statute of limitations applied, while Intuitive argued that California’s two-year statute of limitations applied.

The court applied California’s choice-of-law rules and concluded that California’s two-year statute of limitations governed. The court reasoned that California was the forum and Intuitive was the only defendant and a California resident, giving California the relevant interest in applying its limitations law. The court determined that the limitations period expired on January 13, 2014, based on the January 12, 2012 surgery.

Equitable Estoppel and Tolling Agreement

The court rejected the Rusticos’ argument that equitable estoppel prevented Intuitive from asserting the statute-of-limitations defense. Equitable estoppel is a fairness-based doctrine that can prevent a party from taking a position when that party’s conduct reasonably caused another party to rely on it. The court found that Jean Rustico became a party to the tolling agreement only after the California limitations period had expired. It also found no evidence that Intuitive made promises or representations about the California limitations period that caused reasonable reliance.

The court separately ruled that the tolling agreement did not revive claims that had already expired. The agreement stated that it did not waive or release any limitations defense that could have been asserted before the tolling period and that Intuitive would retain the defenses available at the beginning of that period. Because the claims were already time-barred under California law when Jean Rustico became a party to the agreement, the agreement did not make them timely.

Discovery Rule and Fraudulent Concealment

The court also rejected reliance on California’s discovery rule and fraudulent concealment doctrine. The discovery rule can delay when a claim begins to run until a plaintiff discovers, or reasonably should discover, the claim. Fraudulent concealment can also delay the limitations period in some circumstances. The court concluded that both doctrines were unavailable because the Rusticos were on notice of a potential claim on the date of the surgery.

The court relied on evidence that Dr. Zhou told Jean Rustico and John Rustico that the robotic equipment had malfunctioned and that an electrical component had caused the aortic injury. The court also noted allegations and evidence concerning earlier publications, Dr. Zhou’s report, and Dr. Zhou’s communications with Intuitive. It concluded that the Rusticos should at least have suspected possible wrongdoing by Intuitive on January 12, 2012, and that they did not identify a genuine factual dispute requiring a trial.

Disposition

The court concluded that the Rusticos’ claims were barred by California’s two-year statute of limitations. Judge Lucy H. Koh granted Intuitive Surgical’s motion for summary judgment and denied the Rusticos’ motion for partial summary judgment. Because the claims were untimely, the court did not reach the Rusticos’ motion for partial summary judgment on its merits.