Rouviere v. Depuy Orthopaedics, Inc.

Background

Jodi Rouviere had hip-replacement surgery in 2012. Her doctor implanted a device combining components made by two companies. She alleged that components impinged on one another, releasing toxic metal debris into her body. She asserted product-liability claims against DePuy Orthopaedics, Inc. and another manufacturer based on negligence, strict liability, and breach of express and implied warranties. Andre Rouviere asserted a loss-of-consortium claim.

DePuy moved for summary judgment, which asks the court to rule that the evidence does not support a claim requiring a trial. The court previously granted DePuy’s motion as to all claims against it. Regarding the failure-to-warn claims, the court found a genuine dispute about whether DePuy’s warnings were adequate but held that the plaintiffs had presented no evidence that inadequate warnings were the direct legal cause of Jodi Rouviere’s injury.

Motion for Reconsideration

The plaintiffs asked the court to reconsider that ruling. Reconsideration is an extraordinary remedy generally available only when the moving party identifies a change in controlling law, newly available evidence, or a clear error or manifest injustice. It is not a way to repeat old arguments, present theories that could have been raised earlier, or seek a second hearing on the merits.

The plaintiffs made three principal arguments:

1. They argued that evidence showed Dr. Buly would have followed warnings about metal-on-metal impingement risks and about the lack of Food and Drug Administration approval for combining the components. The court found that the first argument repeated one already made and rejected during summary judgment. It also found that the additional evidence had been available earlier and did not support reconsideration. The court further concluded that the record did not show that a warning would have been important enough to cause Dr. Buly to act differently.

2. They argued that Jodi Rouviere would not have consented to surgery if she had received adequate warnings. The court had already found that issue irrelevant because the plaintiffs had not shown that stronger warnings to Dr. Buly would have caused him to give stronger warnings to Jodi Rouviere. The court again declined to reconsider its proximate-cause ruling on that basis.

3. They argued that the failure to warn caused the injuries to become more severe because their doctors did not know to test for metal exposure or remove the components. The court treated this as a new theory of legal causation that the plaintiffs had not presented in their summary-judgment briefing. It therefore did not consider the theory on reconsideration.

Ruling

Judge Lewis J. Liman denied the motion for reconsideration. The court did not change its earlier decision granting DePuy summary judgment on all claims against it. The clerk was directed to close the docket entry for the reconsideration motion.