Rouviere v. Depuy Orthopaedics, Inc.

Background

Jodi Rouviere received a total right hip replacement on August 14, 2012. The implant included a DePuy titanium femoral stem and ceramic head, along with a Stryker MDM liner, insert, and acetabular cup made and sold by Howmedica Osteonics Corporation. Rouviere alleged that the components impinged on each other, releasing toxic metal debris into her body and causing injuries including pain, instability, metallosis, tissue damage, neurological symptoms, and reduced hip mobility. Her claims against Howmedica included negligence, strict products liability, breach of express warranty, and breach of implied warranty. Andre Rouviere asserted a derivative loss-of-consortium claim.

Rouviere experienced dizziness, vertigo, nausea, vomiting, hip pain, instability, fatigue, weakness, headaches, vision problems, and other symptoms beginning after the surgery. Her hip was revised in November 2016, when the surgeon found impingement between the components and tissue consistent with metal debris. She underwent additional revision procedures in 2017, and all hip components were removed in October 2017. The plaintiffs filed this action on May 31, 2018.

Motion and governing law

Howmedica moved for summary judgment under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56, arguing that the claims were barred by the statute of limitations. The parties agreed that New York law governed and that a three-year limitations period generally applied to the personal-injury claims. They disagreed about when that period began.

The court applied New York Civil Practice Law and Rules § 214-c(2), which starts the three-year period for personal injuries caused by latent exposure to a substance when the plaintiff discovers the injury, or when reasonable diligence should have led to its discovery, whichever is earlier. The court held that this provision applied because the plaintiffs alleged that friction between the implant components released toxic metals and that exposure to those metals caused the injuries. The court rejected Howmedica’s argument that the case involved only a mechanical problem.

Ruling on the personal-injury claims

The court held that the claims accrued when Rouviere became aware of the primary conditions underlying her claims, rather than when she learned that the implant or metal exposure caused them. Under New York law, a plaintiff need not know the cause of an injury, or even know that it has a non-biological cause, for the limitations period to begin.

The court found no genuine dispute of material fact about when Rouviere discovered the relevant conditions. Although her September 2012 dizziness, vertigo, nausea, and vomiting might have been viewed as isolated or inconsequential, the court found that her worsening pain, hip instability, reduced function, fatigue, palpitations, weakness, headaches, vision problems, and other symptoms in 2013 and 2014 were serious, persistent, affected her quality of life, and led to repeated medical visits. The court therefore concluded that she knew of the conditions underlying her claims more than three years before the May 2018 filing. The fact that she did not suspect the implant until May 2015, and that doctors did not identify the devices as the cause until the November 2016 revision surgery, did not extend the limitations period.

The court also rejected the plaintiffs’ argument that their complex medical history created a fact question. It found that the symptoms after the 2012 surgery were new and different from the earlier conditions and that the plaintiffs had consistently alleged that symptoms beginning shortly after the surgery were attributable to the implanted devices.

Warranty claims

The court held that the express- and implied-warranty claims were time-barred even assuming that the four-year limitations period for warranty claims applied. That period begins when the product enters the stream of commerce or is sold. The device necessarily entered the stream of commerce or was sold before its August 14, 2012 implantation, more than four years before the May 2018 lawsuit.

The court rejected the plaintiffs’ argument that the period was extended under the future-performance provision for an express warranty. The provision does not apply to implied warranties, and the plaintiffs identified no express warranty by Howmedica guaranteeing the device’s future performance.

Loss of consortium and equitable estoppel

The court granted summary judgment on Andre Rouviere’s loss-of-consortium claim because it was derivative of Jodi Rouviere’s claims, on which Howmedica was entitled to summary judgment.

The plaintiffs also argued that Howmedica should be prevented from asserting the statute of limitations because of fraudulent concealment. The court rejected that argument. It held that equitable estoppel requires deception or misrepresentation specifically directed at preventing the plaintiff from filing suit. The plaintiffs alleged that Howmedica misled consumers, doctors, and the Food and Drug Administration generally, but did not allege conduct specifically directed at them or intended to prevent them from suing.

Disposition

Judge Liman granted Howmedica’s motion for summary judgment. The court directed the Clerk of Court to close the motion and the case. The court also denied the plaintiffs’ motion to seal certain exhibits without prejudice to filing a revised motion within 14 days that justified sealing under the presumption of public access to judicial documents.