348 F.3d 1073 (8th Cir. 2003), 02-3321, Kennedy v. Baxter Healthcare Corp.

Docket Nº:02-3321
Citation:348 F.3d 1073
Party Name:Kennedy v. Baxter Healthcare Corp.
Case Date:May 21, 2003
Court:United States Courts of Appeals, Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit
 
FREE EXCERPT

Page 1073

348 F.3d 1073 (8th Cir. 2003)

Mary Beth KENNEDY, Plaintiff-Appellant,

v.

BAXTER HEALTHCARE CORPORATION; Defendant-Appellee, Baxter International, Inc.;

Baxter Healthcare SA; Allegiance Healthcare Corporation; Allegiance Corporation, Defendants.

Nos. 02-3321, 02-3516.

United States Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit

May 21, 2003

Submitted: May 16, 2003.

Page 1074

Thomas C. Atmore, Edward W. Gale, Leonard & O'Brien, St. Paul, MN, Leslie J. Bryan, Ralph I. Knowles, Jr., Doffermyre & Shields, Atlanta, GA, for Plaintiff-Appellant.

Kim M. Schmid, David S. Miller, Bowman & Brooke, Minneapolis, MN, John A. Rothstein, Quarles & Brady, Milwaukee, WI, Michael J. Philippi, Kathleen Holper Champagne, John P. Buckley, Ungaretti & Harris, Chicago, IL, Diane P. Sullivan, Princeton Pike Corporate Center, Princeton, NJ, for Defendant-Appellee.

Before LOKEN, Chief Judge, FAGG and MURPHY, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM.

It is hereby ordered at the direction of the court that the unpublished per curiam opinion filed on May 21, 2003, be published.

(5228-010199)

Mary Beth Kennedy, who worked as a registered nurse from 1986 until 1997, brought this dthe sity action against Baxter International Corp., a manufacturer of latex gloves, alleging the gloves caused her to develop a life-threatening allergy to the gloves' proteins. Kennedy asserted claims of design defect and failure to warn. A jury returned a verdict in favor of Baxter. On appeal, Kennedy contends the district court[*] abused its discretion when it made two evidentiary rulings. Specifically, Kennedy asserts the district court should not have admitted testimony and a document about Food and Drug Administration (FDA) employee statements to glove manufacturers that the FDA did not want allergy warnings on rubber gloves. The district court did not abuse its discretion in admitting this evidence, however, because the informal FDA

Page 1075

pronouncements were probative of whether Baxter acted reasonably in designing, labeling, and selling its rubber gloves. Kennedy also contends the district...

To continue reading

FREE SIGN UP