Sprafka v. DePuy Orthopaedics, Inc.

Background

Julie Sprafka and Paul Quast separately sued over complications involving the ATTUNE knee replacement system. The opinion states that DePuy Orthopaedics, Inc. is now known as Medical Device Business Services, Inc., and refers to a singular defendant on that basis.

The defendant began selling the ATTUNE system in 2013. The plaintiffs allege that the defendant became aware of safety issues, developed ATTUNE S+ technology to address those issues, and continued selling the original ATTUNE system while awaiting Food and Drug Administration approval for the newer system. Sprafka received an original ATTUNE implant in August 2016, and Quast received one in May 2017. Both plaintiffs experienced pain and later underwent revision surgery. During those surgeries, their surgeons allegedly found that the system was not adequately attached to the tibia.

Both plaintiffs assert claims for strict liability, negligence, breach of implied warranties, and breach of express warranty. Quast also asserts claims involving alleged failures to warn the Food and Drug Administration, physicians, and patients, as well as negligent misrepresentation and fraud.

Consolidation motions

The plaintiffs moved to consolidate the two civil actions under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 42(a), which permits consolidation when cases involve a common question of law or fact. They argued that both cases require consideration of whether the ATTUNE system was defective, whether it caused the plaintiffs’ injuries, whether the defendant knew or should have known about alleged risks, and whether the defendant failed to warn the plaintiffs’ doctors.

The plaintiffs also argued that consolidation would promote efficiency because discovery would be nearly identical and much of the evidence and many witnesses would overlap. The defendant opposed consolidation, arguing that a jury might improperly view multiple injured plaintiffs as increasing the likelihood of causation. It also argued that the plaintiffs’ different medical histories could cause confusion and that consolidation would delay the proceedings because Sprafka’s case was further along.

Court’s analysis

The court concluded that the cases involved common questions of law and fact. Both plaintiffs received the same type of knee replacement designed and sold by the defendant, alleged that the defendant knew or should have known about defects when the surgeries occurred, experienced similar injuries, and required additional knee surgery. The court identified common factual issues concerning whether the ATTUNE system was defective, whether its deficiencies caused the plaintiffs’ injuries, and whether the defendant knew or should have known about those deficiencies.

The court also found that the cases shared four claims, and that discovery, trial evidence, and witnesses would substantially overlap. It determined that the benefits of consolidation outweighed the risk of confusion from the plaintiffs’ separate medical histories. The court stated that jury instructions could reduce potential confusion during trial. It also rejected the defendant’s delay argument, reasoning that consolidation would streamline pretrial proceedings and reduce time and expense.

Disposition

Judge Donovan W. Frank granted the plaintiffs’ motions to consolidate. Civil Nos. 21-1785 and 22-331 were consolidated for all purposes under Civil No. 22-331, which was designated as the lead case. Future filings were required to use the caption “Paul Quast & Julie Sprafka v. DePuy Orthopaedics, Inc.” and to be filed in the lead case. Parties in Civil No. 21-1785 were directed to re-file pending motions and responses in the lead case within seven days of the order. The clerk was directed to add the related case’s parties and attorneys to the lead case, recognize its existing approvals for attorneys appearing for a particular case, and administratively close Civil No. 21-1785.