Thomas v. C R Bard Incorporated

Background

William T. Thomas had deep vein thrombosis and pulmonary emboli. On July 17, 2014, a doctor implanted a Denali filter, manufactured by Bard, in Thomas’s inferior vena cava. The filter was designed to prevent blood clots from traveling to the heart or lungs. The court stated that it was a prescription medical device cleared by the Food and Drug Administration through the statutory 510(k) process and was not sold directly to patients.

Thomas alleged that after implantation he spit up blood, experienced depression and abdominal pain, and could no longer participate in martial arts or dancing. He also testified that no doctor had told him that the filter caused his blood-related symptoms, and that a doctor told him there was no medical reason to remove the filter.

Thomas originally filed the case in the District of Arizona as part of multidistrict litigation involving Bard inferior vena cava filters. The matter was later sent to the Southern District of New York. Thomas’s complaint asserted fifteen claims, including strict products liability, negligence, negligent and fraudulent misrepresentation, fraudulent concealment, breach of warranty, consumer fraud, unfair and deceptive trade practices, and loss of consortium.

After Thomas’s attorney of record died, the court gave Thomas time to obtain new counsel and later told him he would have to proceed without a lawyer if he could not find one. Thomas did not disclose any expert witnesses, did not file papers opposing Bard’s summary-judgment motion, and did not file a response to Bard’s statement of material facts. The court nevertheless reviewed materials including Thomas’s deposition testimony, complaint, and fact sheet.

Legal standard

Summary judgment is appropriate when the evidence shows no genuine dispute about a fact that could affect the outcome and the moving party is entitled to judgment under the law. The court must examine the moving party’s evidence even when the opposing party does not respond. The court also stated that people representing themselves without lawyers receive special consideration, particularly on summary-judgment motions.

Court’s analysis

Bard argued that all of Thomas’s claims failed because he had no evidence that a defect in the filter or its warnings caused his injuries. The court agreed that causation—the requirement to show that the defendants’ product caused the claimed injuries—was necessary for Thomas’s products-liability, negligence, warranty, fraud, misrepresentation, consumer-protection, and related claims.

The court held that expert testimony was required for both general causation and specific causation. General causation means showing that the product or a defect in it can cause the type of injury claimed. Specific causation means showing that the product or defect actually caused the plaintiff’s injury. The court reasoned that whether an implanted inferior vena cava filter could cause symptoms such as spitting up blood or abdominal pain was beyond the ordinary knowledge of a jury.

Thomas provided no expert testimony or other expert evidence on causation. The court found that his allegation that the symptoms began after the filter was implanted showed only timing or correlation, not causation. It also found that his allegations were conclusory and speculative and did not provide evidence from which a reasonable jury could find that Bard’s product caused his injuries.

Disposition

The court held that all of Thomas’s claims required proof that Bard’s product caused his injuries. Because Thomas failed to provide evidence of causation, including the required expert testimony, the court granted Bard’s motion for summary judgment. The Clerk was directed to enter judgment for the defendants and close the case.

Uncertainty

The opinion clearly identifies the judge as “Seibel, J.”, but the supplied text does not clearly show the judge’s full first name.