Redd v. Medtronic Inc.

Background

Lorenzo Redd, formerly incarcerated at Woodbourne Correctional Facility, represented himself and was proceeding without paying filing fees. He sued Medtronic Inc. and Westchester Medical Center under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging violations of the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments related to a July 5, 2017 surgery at Westchester Medical Center. Redd alleged that titanium screws and rods were installed in his lower back, that the screws later broke, and that he experienced pain, limited mobility, numbness, and other injuries. He sought $20 million for pain and suffering and lost future wages.

The defendants moved to dismiss under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), which permits dismissal when a complaint does not state a legally sufficient claim. Redd received two opportunities to amend but did not file an amended complaint. He also did not oppose the dismissal motions, so the court reviewed whether the complaint was legally sufficient based on its allegations.

Claims Against Medtronic

The court dismissed Redd’s constitutional claims against Medtronic with prejudice. A private company generally cannot be sued under § 1983 unless it acted as a state actor—for example, by participating in joint activity with the government. The court held that Medtronic’s manufacture of medical items used by a state actor during surgery was not enough to establish that Medtronic acted under color of state law. The complaint did not allege that Medtronic participated in joint activity or conspired with a state actor.

The court also construed Redd’s allegations as asserting a New York products-liability claim against Medtronic. Such a claim may be based on negligence, strict liability, or breach of warranty. For negligence or strict liability, the complaint needed facts showing a product defect and that the defect substantially caused the injury. The court held that alleging only that the screws were “broken” did not identify a design defect, a manufacturing defect, or a failure to warn. The products-liability claim was therefore dismissed with prejudice.

Claim Against Westchester Medical Center

Redd claimed that Westchester Medical Center was deliberately indifferent to his serious medical needs in violation of the Eighth Amendment. The court explained that this type of claim requires both an objectively serious medical deprivation and facts showing that the defendant knowingly or recklessly disregarded a substantial risk of serious harm.

The court found that the alleged broken screws and resulting severe injury were sufficiently serious to satisfy the objective part of the test. It held, however, that Redd did not plausibly allege the required state of mind. The court noted that Redd acknowledged Westchester Medical Center identified the problem and replaced the broken screws during follow-up care. The court therefore dismissed the claim against Westchester Medical Center with prejudice.

Disposition

Judge Philip M. Halpern granted both defendants’ motions to dismiss. The court dismissed Redd’s claims against Medtronic and Westchester Medical Center with prejudice, finding that amendment would be futile after Redd had already received two opportunities to amend. The court certified that an appeal would not be taken in good faith and denied Redd fee-free appeal status. The clerk was directed to terminate the pending motions, mail the order to Redd, and close the case.