Court Rejects Res Ipsa in Breast Implant Case: Attorney
A New Jersey federal court has reiterated that plaintiffs challenging the safety or effectiveness of Class 3 medical devices with premarket approval can’t rely on the res ipsa loquitur (occurrence of an accident implies negligence) doctrine to satisfy their pleading obligations. Attorney Andrew Tauber (Winston & Strawn) writes in an online post that the court dismissed manufacturing defect, warranty, and failure-to-warn claims against Johnson & Johnson arising from an allegedly defective breast implant.
Tauber says plaintiffs asserting manufacturing defect claims often don’t allege any facts suggesting that the particular unit they received deviated from its intended design. Rather, they rely on the res ipsa doctrine to argue that one can infer from their injury alone that the unit they received suffered from a manufacturing defect.
The court said that plaintiffs “cannot simply demonstrate a defect or a malfunction and rely on res ipsa loquitur” to state a manufacturing defect claim, Tauber writes. It held that since malfunctions can occur even if a manufacturer adheres to the FDA-approved manufacturing process, one cannot infer a manufacturing defect from the mere fact that a Class 3 medical device malfunctioned.
While the plaintiffs alleged that the company violated FDA current good manufacturing practice regulations, the court found that the suit’s “laundry list of alleged CGMP violations” was not sufficient because they were not tied to a defect in the manufacture of the specific unit received.