Please E-mail suggested additions, comments and/or corrections to Kent@MoreLaw.Com.

Help support the publication of case reports on MoreLaw

Date: 08-26-2022

Case Style:

Lori Nicholson v. Biomet, Inc.

Case Number: 21-2263

Judge: Grasz

Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit on appeal from the Northern District of Iowa

Plaintiff's Attorney:





Click Here to Watch How To Find A Lawyer by Kent Morlan

Click Here For The Best Cedar Rapids Personal Injury Lawyer Directory


If no lawyer is listed, call 918-582-6422 and MoreLaw will help you find a lawyer.


Defendant's Attorney: Stephanie Anne Koltookian, Thomas J. Joensen, Adrienne Franco Busby,

Description: Cedar Rapids, Iowa personal injury lawyers represented Plaintiffs, who sued Defendants on product liability theories.

This products liability case arises out of the multidistrict litigation1 (“MDL”)
proceedings regarding Biomet’s M2a Magnum hip-replacement device. After
experiencing complications from a hip replacement surgery using the M2a Magnum,
Lori Nicholson sued Biomet, Inc., Biomet Orthopedics, LLC, Biomet
Manufacturing LLC, and Biomet U.S. Reconstruction, LLC (collectively,
“Biomet”), alleging multiple claims, including defective design. A jury ultimately
found in Nicholson’s favor, concluding the M2a Magnum was defectively designed.
The jury also awarded Nicholson punitive damages. Biomet moved for a new trial
and renewed its motion for judgment as a matter of law, but the district court2 denied
these motions. For the reasons set forth below, we affirm.

I. Background

Nicholson’s left hip was replaced in 2007 with Biomet’s M2a Magnum—a
large metal-on-metal articulation total hip replacement device. About four years
later, Nicholson returned to her surgeon, Dr. Emile Li, with hip pain and a cyst at
the crease of her left hip. Dr. Li determined Nicholson’s symptoms were caused by
the M2a Magnum’s loosening and migration. Dr. Li attributed the cyst and
migration to metal-on-metal wear and the release of metal ions. Dr. Li tested
Nicholson’s chromium and cobalt levels through a blood draw and discovered
Nicholson’s chromium level was six times the normal rate. Dr. Li diagnosed
Nicholson with metallosis—deposition of metal debris into bodily fluids and
tissue—and concluded the M2a Magnum had failed. Dr. Li recommended
Nicholson have a revision surgery to replace the metal-on-metal M2a Magnum with
a metal-on-polyethylene (“metal-on-poly”) device. Dr. Li performed Nicholson’s
revision surgery months later without complication, and Nicholson’s condition
improved.

Nicholson later sued Biomet, asserting multiple claims—including one for
defective design.3 Nicholson also sought punitive damages, alleging Biomet knew
the M2a Magnum’s metal-on-metal design was defective yet continued to design,
manufacture, and market the device with a conscious and deliberate disregard for
the rights and safety of consumers. Biomet moved for summary judgment on all
claims. The district court granted summary judgment in favor of Biomet on all
claims except for Nicholson’s defective design and punitive damages claims.
Among the claims on which the district court awarded summary judgment to Biomet
was a product liability claim based on a failure to warn. The district court held the
warnings and instructions for the device were adequate as a matter of law.
The case proceeded to a jury trial on the defective design claim and punitive
damages. The jury found for Nicholson, finding the alleged design defect of the
M2a Magnum caused Nicholson’s injuries, and awarded $1,050,000 in
compensatory damages. The jury further found Biomet’s conduct constituted a
willful and wanton reckless disregard for the rights and safety of consumers and
awarded Nicholson $2,500,000 in punitive damages.

Biomet then filed two post-trial motions. First, Biomet moved for a new trial
claiming the district court erred in admitting evidence and refusing to give
appropriate jury instructions. Second, Biomet moved for judgment as a matter of
law on Nicholson’s defective design claim and on Nicholson’s request for punitive
damages. The district court denied both motions. Biomet now appeals the district
court’s denial of these post-trial motions.

* * *

Biomet simply failed to produce evidence at trial that its warnings or
instructions for the M2a Magnum created a defense to Nicholson’s design defect
claim. The district court possesses a broad discretion in instructing the jury. While
the district court’s jury instructions “must fairly and adequately represent the law of
the forum state,” it is “not required to instruct on issues that do not find support in
the record.” McCoy v. Augusta Fiberglass Coatings, Inc., 593 F.3d 737, 744 (8th
Cir. 2010) (quoting Brown v. Sandals Resorts Int’l., 284 F.3d 949, 953 (8th Cir.
2002)). Here, the trial record is void of any attempt by Biomet to suggest the M2a
Magnum’s warnings and instructions negated Nicholson’s claim that a reasonable
alternative design existed.

Outcome: Affirmed

Plaintiff's Experts: Mari Truman and Dr. John Cuckler

Defendant's Experts: Dr. Li

Comments:



Find a Lawyer

Subject:
City:
State:
 

Find a Case

Subject:
County:
State: