Bayes v. Biomet, Inc.
| Decision Date | 02 August 2021 |
| Docket Number | 4:13-cv-00800-SRC |
| Parties | MARY BAYES, et al., Plaintiffs, v. BIOMET, INC., et al., Defendants. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Eastern District of Missouri |
In its third and final post-trial motion, Biomet strenuously argues that the Court should order a new trial based on the numerous errors that occurred at trial and the “grossly excessive” verdict awarded by the jury. In the alternative, Biomet requests that the Court grant remittitur. After careful consideration of the record and all issues raised, the Court concludes that no prejudicial error occurred and denies the motion.
The Court provided the relevant background in its ruling on Biomet's Motion to Alter the Judgment, Doc. 461, and therefore declines to restate it in full here. Biomet filed a motion for judgment on the verdict, or in the alternative for a mistrial at the close of evidence of the first phase of the trial, Doc. 379, raising many of the same grounds forwarded in the present motion. The Court denied that motion on the record. Doc. 416 at 524-1416.
Pursuant to Rule 59, Biomet moves for a new trial, or, in the alternative, for remittitur. Doc. 440. Biomet argues that it is entitled to a new trial because the jury reached inconsistent verdicts, the verdict runs against the weight of the evidence, and purported errors at trial necessitate a new trial. Doc. 441. In the alternative, Biomet contends it deserves a new trial or remittitur because the $21 million in damages awarded by the jury constitutes an excessive verdict. Id. After the parties had fully-briefed the motion, Plaintiffs filed a Notice of Supplemental Authority. Doc. 459. Biomet then sought leave to reply to Plaintiffs' Notice of Supplemental Authority, Doc. 460, which the Court grants. Taking into consideration all the parties' filings on the motion, the Court first addresses Biomet's grounds for a new trial, before evaluating whether the jury's damages award warrants remittitur.
A. Standard
“The court may, on motion, grant a new trial on all or some of the issues-and to any party . . . after a jury trial, for any reason for which a new trial has heretofore been granted in an action at law in federal court.” Fed.R.Civ.P. 59(a)(1)(A). Under Rule 59(a)(1)(A), “[a] new trial is appropriate when the first trial, through a verdict against the weight of the evidence, an excessive damage award, or legal errors at trial, resulted in a miscarriage of justice.” Gray v. Bicknell, 86 F.3d 1472, 1480 (8th Cir. 1996) (citations omitted). A miscarriage of justice does not result whenever there are errors at trial; instead, the party seeking a new trial must demonstrate that there was prejudicial error. Buchholz v. Rockwell Int'l Corp., 120 F.3d 146, 148 (8th Cir. 1997). “Motions for new trials are generally disfavored and will be granted only where a serious miscarriage of justice may have occurred.” United States v. Petroske, 928 F.3d 767, 774 (8th Cir. 2019), cert. denied, 140 S.Ct. 973 (2020) (quoting United States v. Morris, 817 F.3d 1116, 1121 (8th Cir. 2016)).
B. Inconsistent verdicts
As in other motions, Biomet again argues that the jury returned inconsistent verdicts, which entitles it to a new trial. Doc. 441 at pp. 9-11. The Court has addressed this issue at length in its orders on Biomet's Motion to Alter the Judgment and Renewed Motion for Judgment as a Matter of Law. Docs. 461, 462. As explained there, the verdicts reached in this case did not result in a miscarriage of justice and the Court finds the verdicts can readily be harmonized. Accordingly, Biomet is not entitled to a new trial based on the jury's verdicts.
C. Verdict as against the weight of the evidence
Biomet next argues that the Court should grant a new trial because the verdict reached by the jury on the negligent-design claim goes against the weight of the evidence and resulted in a miscarriage of justice. Doc. 441 at p. 11. The Court disagrees.
District courts have “great deference” in ruling on motions for a new trial. Wilson v. Lamp, 995 F.3d 628, 631 (8th Cir. 2021) (citation omitted). In fact, “[w]hen the basis of the motion for a new trial is that the jury's verdict is against the weight of the evidence, the district court's denial of the motion is virtually unassailable on appeal.” Lincoln Composites, Inc. v. Firetrace USA, LLC, 825 F.3d 453, 459 (8th Cir. 2016) (quoting source omitted). In determining whether the jury's verdict runs against the weight of the evidence, the Court “can rely on its own reading of the evidence-it can weigh the evidence, disbelieve witnesses, and grant a new trial even where there is substantial evidence to sustain the verdict.” Id. (). “The crucial determination ‘is whether a new trial should have been granted to avoid a miscarriage of justice.'” PFS Distribution Co. v. Raduechel, 574 F.3d 580, 589 (8th Cir. 2009) (quoting Keeper v. King, 130 F.3d 1309, 1314 (8th Cir. 1997).
In arguing that the verdict goes against the weight of the evidence, Biomet simply rehashes many of the same grounds it raised in its Renewed Motion for Judgment as a Matter of Law. See Doc. 438. The Court found these grounds meritless in denying that motion and does not repeat them here. See Doc. 462. Biomet cites other evidence to demonstrate that Plaintiffs offered insufficient evidence, see Doc. 441 at pp. 12-13, but this evidence merely supports that the M2a Magnum constituted a high-end metal-on-metal hip implant and thus fails to address that the jury could have found that the metal-on-metal design choice alone made the product defective. Moreover, the evidence offered by Biomet does not so strongly outweigh the evidence presented by Plaintiffs, summarized by the Court in its prior order, see Doc. 462, such that a new trial must be awarded to avoid a miscarriage of justice. Therefore, based on the evidence offered by Plaintiffs supporting their negligent-design claim, and upon consideration of the record as a whole, the verdict reached on the negligent-design claim did not go against the weight of the evidence. Accordingly, the Court denies Biomet's Motion for New Trial on this ground.
D. Errors at trial
Biomet offers four errors at trial that independently, or in the alternative, cumulatively warrant a new trial. The Court addresses each purported error in turn.
Biomet argues that the jury's inconsistent verdicts might have been prevented had the Court instructed the jury with one of Biomet's proposed jury instructions. Doc. 441 at p. 15. Biomet asked the Court to instruct the jury as follows:
On Plaintiffs' claim for negligence, your verdict must be for Biomet if you believe that Plaintiff Mary Bayes underwent revision surgeries and developed injuries as a result of causes unrelated to any alleged defect in her M2a Magnum devices.
Doc. 352-1 at p. 19. Biomet submitted the same affirmative converse jury instruction on causation for the strict-liability design-defect claim. Id. at p. 15. Biomet contends that had the Court given these instructions, the jury would have understood that the causation elements of the strict-liability and negligent-design defect claims were the same and might have avoided the inconsistent verdicts reached in this case. Id. The Court already rejected this argument, Doc. 416 at 9:18-25, and does so again here.
First, Biomet's argument rests on the false premise that the jury reached inconsistent verdicts. As the Court explained above and in its prior orders, the jury did not reach inconsistent verdicts. See Docs. 461, 462. Second, as the Court has already ruled, the jury received instruction on the issue of causation and thus the affirmative converse instruction was unnecessary. See Doc. 362; Doc. 416 at 9:18-25; Fid. & Deposit Co. of Maryland v. Fleischer, 772 S.W.2d 809, 817 (Mo.Ct.App. 1989). Third, even if the jury had received the instruction, it only addresses causation and thus would not have addressed the differing elements between the two instructions from which the Court can easily harmonize the verdicts. See Doc. 461. For these reasons, the Court denies Biomet's Motion for New Trial on this ground.
Biomet next argues that the misconduct of Darin Schanker, Plaintiffs' counsel, in exposing the jury to questioning and argument concerning other litigation involving Biomet as well as claims no longer included in the case, in defiance of this Court's orders, warrants a new trial. The Court already rejected this argument, Doc. 416 at 11:13-12:6, and does so again here.
Near the end of the first phase of the trial, the Court ruled orally from the bench and later issued a memorandum and order addressing Schanker's misconduct. Doc. 343 at 5:13-14:1; Doc. 354. At the hearing, the Court presented numerous examples of Schanker's misconduct, including eliciting testimony on the failure-to-warn claim that had been dismissed from the suit and testimony on medical causation from Mari Truman. Doc. 343 at 7:4-10:19. The Court did not impose sanctions, but informed Schanker that future misconduct would result in sanctions, including the termination of his participation in the case. Id. at 11:14-12:11. After providing its oral ruling, the Court gave Biomet the opportunity to be heard, but Biomet did not request any sanctions or a mistrial at that time. Id. at 13:10-13. As the Court noted in its initial ruling, Doc. 416 at 11:20-25, Biomet never argued before the jury reached its verdict that Schanker's conduct warranted a mistrial.
In determining whether to grant a new trial based on Schanker's misconduct, ...
To continue reading
Request your trial