Boston Scientific Loses Preemption Argument in Manufacturing Defect Case.

Generally, under the law of products liability, a manufacturing defect is an unintended defect in an otherwise safe product that occurs when the product departs from its intended design and is thus more dangerous than it should be. In Massachusetts, manufacturers are required to uphold a near-equivalent of strict liability called the implied warranty of merchantability.

In Dweyer v. Boston Scientific Corp., a man implanted with a cardiac resynchronization therapy defibrillator died from head trauma sustained after he lost consciousness and fell when the device malfunctioned.

Subsequently, the device was explanted from his body and returned to the manufacturer, Boston Scientific Corporation, for testing. The results confirmed that the wiring in the device transformer had failed. The decedent’s wife sued the manufacturer for negligence and breach of the implied warranty of merchantability. According to a Foley Hoag article, she alleged that the wrongful death had been caused by a defect resulting from the defendant’s violation of various federal Current Good Manufacturing Practices regulations applicable to all medical devices.

Boston Scientific moved to dismiss the case on the grounds that the 1976 Medical Device Amendments to the Federal Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act expressly preempted the wife’s claims because federal law occupied the field and thus supplanted state law.

The court noted the absence of Massachusetts authority on the specific issue, and thus deferred to the reasoning of the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit. The court held that Current Good Manufacturing Practices regulations adopted by the Food and Drug Administration are legally binding requirements for the manufacturers of Class III medical devices.

Moreover, the court held that even in the absence of Current Good Manufacturing Practices regulations, the wife’s allegations would give rise to a right to recover under Massachusetts law, which imposes a duty of reasonable care on manufacturers and recognizes a breach of warranty where a manufacturing defect makes a product unreasonably dangerous. The wife’s state law claims paralleled federal requirements and thus were not preempted according to the court.

If you or a loved one has suffered an injury related to a defective product, please email us at info@gilhoylaw.com or call 617-787-3700 now to speak with one of our Boston product liability lawyer experts.

Posted in Boston Accident Injury Lawyer, Boston Personal Injury Lawyer, Boston Product Liability Lawyer | Leave a comment

Time Warner Seeks New Trial After $2.7 Million Workplace Injury Judgment.

When workplace injuries occur, employers have a common law duty to provide some semblance of accommodations to the injured employee. If an employer is found liable for failure to accommodate, the compensatory and punitive damages can quickly add up to a large sum. Such an incident has caused Time Warner to seek a new trial regarding a lawsuit brought by one of its former warehouse workers.

On June 12, plaintiff Patricia Hancock of Compton, California won a $2.7 million judgment after a jury found that Time Warner failed to accommodate her for an on-the-job injury. The Los Angeles Superior Court jury, however, rejected her causes of action for wrongful termination, retaliation, disability discrimination and defamation. Despite the jury’s verdict, Time Warner sought favorable judgment through post-trial remedies arguing that there was insufficient evidence to support Hancock’s claims for failure to accommodate, failure to engage in the interactive process and the award of punitive damages.

According to a Los Angeles Daily News article, the jury awarded $692,545 in compensatory damages and a little over $2 million in punitive damages.

Part of Hancock’s job at Time Warner’s Bellflower warehouse was to pull pallets of cable boxes weighing hundreds of pounds.She claimed that, at the age of 59, she suffered a neck injury in August of 2011 and reported it to her supervisor who brushed off the report. Upon getting home, she took a Hydrocodone painkiller she had left over from a prior surgery. Subsequently, Hancock was unable to pick up her granddaughter from after-school activities, cook for herself, or wash dishes that day. The next day, she requested leave time from her supervisor, who told her to come in for a drug test.

After receiving the results, the supervisor reported to Time Warner human resources that Hancock tested positive for illegal drugs and thereby violated the company’s drug-free policy. Hancock was fired less than two weeks after reporting her disability.

If you or a family member has suffered a workplace injury and need legal assistance, please email us at info@gilhoylaw.com or call 617-787-3700 now to speak with one of our Massachusetts personal injury and tort law specialists.

Posted in Boston Accident Injury Lawyer, Boston Job Site Accident Injury Lawyer, Boston Negligence Lawyer, Boston Personal Injury Lawyer, Boston Premises Liability Lawyer, Boston Worker's Compensation Lawyer | Leave a comment

Courts Are Reluctant To Use Legal Doctrine Of “Res Ipsa Loquitur.”

In most tort cases, the person suing must prove that the defendant was acting negligently and that the negligence caused injury. However, there are a few cases in which the burden is on the defendant to show that his or her conduct was proper and not negligent. These types of cases sometimes apply the legal doctrine of “res ipsa loquitur,” Latin which translates to “the thing speaks for itself.” For these cases to be successful, the negligence of the defendant must be implied by the facts presented.

This doctrine was first used in England in 1863. In the case of Byrne v. Boadle, a pedestrian was hit by a barrel of flour that was being lowered from the top floors of a warehouse. The defendant owned the entire warehouse. The plaintiff, however, could not provide specific facts to prove that the defendant was negligent in his actions. Nevertheless, the defendant could not prove that he acted properly. Therefore, the plaintiff won the lawsuit.     

Fast-forward to 2015. More and more courts are reluctant to utilize this legal doctrine. American courts want the plaintiff to show precisely how the defendant was negligent, or the lawsuit is often dismissed. For example, in a recent case, the plaintiff was suing a car manufacturer because the airbags in the car failed to deploy during a car accident. Under res ipsa loquitur, the car manufacturer would have to prove that it acted properly, and without negligence, in installing the air bags or else it would be found liable. However, the court refused to apply the doctrine, instead leaving the burden of proof on the plaintiff to prove the defendant’s negligence.

According to the Huffington Post, many courts are moving away from res ipsa loquitur out of fear that the causation between the negligence and the injury suffered is based more on speculation than actual facts. Therefore, many attorneys will only attempt to apply the doctrine as a last resort.

If you or a loved one has suffered a personal injury, please call 617-787-3700 now to speak with one of our expert Massachusetts personal injury lawyers or email us at info@gilhoylaw.com.

Posted in Boston Accident Injury Lawyer, Boston Negligence Lawyer, Boston Personal Injury Lawyer | Leave a comment