Christiansen v. Wright Med. Tech. Inc. (In re Wright Med. Tech. Inc., Conserve Hip Implant Prods. Liab. Litig.)

• Decision Date: 05 April 2016
• Docket Number: 1:13-cv-297-WSD,MDL DOCKET NO. 2329
• Citation: 178 F.Supp.3d 1321
• Parties: In re: Wright Medical Technology Inc., Conserve Hip Implant Products Liability Litigation. Robyn Christiansen, Plaintiff, v. Wright Medical Technology Incorporated, Defendant.
• Court: U.S. District Court — Northern District of Georgia

178 F.Supp.3d 1321

In re: Wright Medical Technology Inc., Conserve Hip Implant Products Liability Litigation.Robyn Christiansen, Plaintiff,

v.Wright Medical Technology Incorporated, Defendant.

MDL DOCKET NO. 2329

1:13-cv-297-WSD

United States District Court, N.D. Georgia, Atlanta Division.

Signed April 5, 2016

OPINION AND ORDER

WILLIAM S. DUFFEY, JR., UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

This matter is before the Court on Defendant Wright Medical Technology, Inc. 's (“Defendant” or “Wright Medical”)¹ Renewed Motion for Judgment as a Matter of Law, or in the Alternative, Motion for New Trial and to Amend the Judgment [241] (“Renewed Motion”).²

I. BACKGROUND³

Plaintiff Robyn Christiansen (“Plaintiff”) filed this action against Defendant Wright Medical based on the failure of the Wright Conserve Hip Implant

System (the “hip replacement device”) that was surgically implanted on April 24, 2006, to replace Plaintiff's right hip. On November 9, 2015, trial began on Plaintiff's claims for: (1) Strict Product Liability (Design Defect) (Count I); (2) Negligence (Design Defect) (Count III); (3) Fraudulent Misrepresentation (Count V); (4) Fraudulent Concealment (Count VI); and (5) Negligent Misrepresentation (Count VII), and her demand for compensatory and punitive damages.

On November 16, 2015, after Plaintiff concluded her case-in-chief, Defendant moved, under Rule 50 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, for judgment as a matter of law on Plaintiff's claims for: (1) fraudulent misrepresentation; (2) fraudulent concealment; (3) negligent misrepresentation; and (4) punitive damages. ( [239] ). The Court declined to rule on the motion at that time, and trial proceeded. (Trial Transcript [226]-[236] at 921:21-922:16).⁴

On November 18, 2015, Defendant renewed its Rule 50 motion at the close of evidence. Defendant also argued that Comment k of Section 402A of the Restatement (Second) of Torts (“Comment k”) bars Plaintiff's strict liability claim for design defect, and that the Court should grant judgment as a matter of law on this claim. The Court submitted the case to the jury, allowing Defendant to renew its motion for judgment as a matter of law, for a new trial, or both, after the jury returned its verdict. ( [212] ).

On November 19, 2015, the Court held its charge conference (the “Charge Conference”). The Court discussed the proposed jury charges, including proposed charges on strict product liability (design defect), fraudulent misrepresentation, negligent misrepresentation, fraudulent concealment, negligence, comparative fault, and compensatory and punitive damages. (Tr. at 1346-1401). There was only one objection at the Charge Conference, and that was based on the Court's charge on Defendant's Comment k defense. (Tr. at 1414:6-18). The charge required Defendant to prove three things to prevail on its Comment k defense:

(1) When the hip replacement device was made, it could not be made safe for its intended use even applying the best available testing and research;

(2) The benefit of the hip replacement device justified its risk; and

(3) The hip replacement device, properly manufactured, was accompanied by proper directions and warnings.

(Id. at 1414:11-14, 1416:5-21). Defendant objected to the third element, arguing it was not required under Utah law and was not otherwise a requirement of Comment k. (Id. at 1414:2-5, 1414:17-18, 1417:6-13).

The proposed verdict form also was discussed at the Charge Conference. (Id. at 1401-19). The Court, in consultation with the parties, made certain revisions to the verdict form. One change suggested by the Court and agreed to by the parties was to require the jury to make special factual findings on each of the three prongs the Court determined Defendant must prove for its Comment k defense. ( [219.1] (the “Original Verdict Form”) at 7).

The general structure of the Original Verdict Form was that it contained questions required to be answered followed by instructions on how to proceed depending on answers to the questions. The first question on the Original Verdict Form, Question 1A, stated: “Do you find by a preponderance of the evidence that Wright Medical's hip replacement device was defectively designed?” (Original Verdict Form at 1). The jury was required to answer “Yes” or “No.” The bolded instruction after Question 1A stated: “If you answered NO to Question 1A, stop, and sign and date this form. If you answered YES to Question 1A, proceed to Question 1B.” (Id.). The purpose of this instruction was to ensure that if the jury concluded the hip replacement device was not defectively designed, it would cease its deliberations, because without a finding of defect, Plaintiff could not prevail on any of her claims. (See Tr. at 1402:7-21).

After closing arguments, the Court charged the jury. (Id. at 1423-1506). The Parties did not object to the charge as given.⁵ (Id. at 1506:9-14). The Court gave the jury the Original Verdict Form for use in its deliberations.

On November 20, 2015, the jury notified the Court that it had reached a verdict. (Id. at 1518). The jury returned to the courtroom and the completed Original Verdict Form was given to the Court for review. The Court reviewed the form and instructed the courtroom deputy to read it. (Id. at 1519:3-4).

After the courtroom deputy read the answer to Question 1A as “No,” the Court, recognizing that the Original Verdict Form had an inconsistency in it, told the courtroom deputy to stop reading the form so the Court could reexamine it further. (Id. at 1519:5-15). Upon review of the Original Verdict Form, the Court discovered that the jury had completed the form inconsistently with the instructions on the form, including the instruction telling them what to do if they answered “No” to Question 1A. The instruction provided that a “No” answer to Question 1A required the foreperson to “stop, and sign and date this form.” (Original Verdict Form at 1). Reviewing the Original Verdict Form as a whole, the Court noted the inconsistency in how it was completed. The Court noted that the answer to Question 1A was that Wright Medical's hip replacement device was not defectively designed, meaning the jury was to date and sign the form. Instead, the jury continued answering questions on the form including by finding that Wright Medical had made negligent misrepresentations to Plaintiff as to the hip replacement device, and that Plaintiff should be awarded $662,500 in compensatory damages on the negligent misrepresentation count, and $2.5 million in punitive damages. (Id. at 4, 6). The jury also concluded that Plaintiff was partially at fault for causing her injuries, attributing 24.24% of the fault to her. (Id. at 6). These findings were not consistent with the initial finding of no defect. The Original Verdict Form, as completed, indicated to the Court that the jurors were confused either about their findings, or how the Original Verdict Form should be completed, or both.

The Court instructed the jury to take the Original Verdict Form back to the jury room and to carefully reread the form to evaluate whether they had completed it properly. (Tr. at 1519:16-20). The Court explained to the jury that the Original Verdict Form was drafted to guide them through findings they needed to make and findings they were not to make, depending on how they answered the questions on the form. (Id. at 1521:13-23). The Court provided a clean copy of the Original Verdict Form, and instructed the jury to go back to the jury room and read it out loud to ensure that they all understood the specific instructions that applied to the questions. (Id. at 1522:7-12). The Court instructed the jury that, should their understanding of the form impact their thinking about the verdict, they should discuss that with each other. (Id. at 1522:13-16, 1523:2-13).

After the jury left the courtroom, Defendant objected to the instructions the Court gave to the jury, and moved that the Court accept the jury's answer to Question 1A of the Original Verdict Form, and mold the remainder of the Original Verdict Form “to reflect judgment for defendant and against plaintiff ....” (Id. at 1523:19-1524:20). The Court denied Defendant's motion, finding that the jury did not understand the instructions on the Original Verdict Form. (Id. at 1524:21-1525:7).

A few minutes later, the jury notified the Court that it did not understand the Original Verdict Form and that they wanted an additional explanation of it. (Id. at 1525:23-1526:1). Without the jury present, the Court and counsel for the parties discussed how to revise the verdict form to better instruct the jury on how they were required to proceed based on how they answered each question. (Id. at 1526:2-1529:5). The Court suggested amending the verdict form to replace “stop, and sign and date this form” to state clearly that if the jurors answered “No” to Questions 1A, 1B, 1D, or 1E, they should stop completing the form and tell the Court they had reached a verdict. (Id. at 1526:13-21). The parties did not object to modifying the verdict form in the manner discussed although Defendant stated it was doing so subject to its earlier motion for entry of judgment in its favor. (Id. at 1527:7-10, 1527:24-1528:1, 1528:23).

The Court prepared a revised verdict form with the agreed revised instructions. ( [225.5] at 61-67 (the “Supplemented Verdict Form”)). The revised instructions directed what the jury should do if they answered “No” to Questions 1A, 1B, 1D, or 1E. The instructions were in the following form:

If you answered “No” to Question 1A, stop. Do not complete the remainder of the form. The foreperson should sign and date the form and tell the Court Security Officer you have a verdict.

(Supplemented Verdict Form at 1). The Court drafted the following note to be attached to the revised form when it was delivered to the jury:

Ladies and Gentlemen:

In response to your comment that you do not understand the verdict form, I have revised the form by adding clarifying language

...