Nicholson v. Biomet, Inc.
Decision Date | 06 May 2021 |
Docket Number | No. 18-CV-3057-CJW-KEM,18-CV-3057-CJW-KEM |
Citation | 537 F.Supp.3d 990 |
Parties | Lori NICHOLSON, Plaintiff, v. BIOMET, INC.; Biomet Orthopedics, LLC ; Biomet Manufacturing Corp.; and Biomet US Reconstruction, LLC, Defendants. |
Court | U.S. District Court — Northern District of Iowa |
Roxanne Barton Conlin, Devin Kelly, Roxanne Conlin & Associates PC, Des Moines, IA, Bryan Hofeld, Pro Hac Vice, Jeffrey L. Haberman, Pro Hac Vice, Sarah J. Schultz, Pro Hac Vice, David Silverman, Pro Hac Vice, Jonathan R. Gdanski, Pro Hac Vice, Scott P. Schlesinger, Pro Hac Vice, Schlesinger Law Offices PA, Fort Lauderdale, FL, for Plaintiff.
Stephanie Anne Koltookian, Thomas J. Joensen, Faegre Drinker Biddle & Reath LLP, Des Moines, IA, Adrienne Franco Busby, Pro Hac Vice, Faegre Baker Daniels LLP, Stephanie N. Russo, Pro Hac Vice, Faegre Drinker Biddle & Reath LLP, Indianapolis, IN, Bruce Jones, Pro Hac Vice, Michelle Marie Tessier, Pro Hac Vice, Joseph M. Price, Pro Hac Vice, Faegre Drinker Biddle & Reath LLP, Minneapolis, MN, Bryan D. Pasciak, Pro Hac Vice, Faegre Drinker Biddle & Reath LLP, Chicago, IL, Erin Linder Hanig, Pro Hac Vice, John D. LaDue, Pro Hac Vice, LaDue Curran & Kuehn LLC, South Bend, IN, for Defendants.
TABLE OF CONTENTS
This matter is before the Court on defendant's1 Renewed Motion for Judgment as a Matter of Law (Doc. 427), defendant's Motion for New Trial, or in the Alternative, for Remittitur (Doc. 425)2 , and plaintiff's Motion to Amend the Final Judgment (Doc. 433). Plaintiff timely resisted defendant's Renewed Motion for Judgment as a Matter of Law (Doc. 444) and defendant filed a timely reply (Doc. 461). Plaintiff also timely resisted defendant's Motion for a New Trial (Doc. 445) and defendant filed a timely reply (Doc. 462). Defendant timely resisted plaintiff's Motion to Amend the Final Judgment. (Doc. 438).
This matter is also before the Court on plaintiff's Bill of Costs. (Doc. 424). On December 21, 2020, defendant filed objections to plaintiff's Bill of Costs (Doc. 432) and on January 11, 2021, plaintiff replied to the objections (Doc. 440).
On March 5, 2021, the Court held a hearing on the above matters. (Doc. 467). Although the Court informed the parties that they were free to present arguments on all the motions, the parties limited their oral arguments to defendant's Renewed Motion for Judgment as a Matter of Law and defendant's Motion for a New Trial. (Id. ). Following the hearing the parties filed supplemental briefing, although the Court did not request the briefing and the parties did not seek leave of Court to do so. (Docs. 468, 469, & 470).
For the following reasons, defendant's Renewed Motion for Judgment as a Matter of Law is denied . (Doc. 427). Defendant's Motion for a New Trial is denied . (Doc. 425). Plaintiff's Motion to Amend the Judgment is granted . (Doc. 433). Defendant's objections to the Bill of Costs (Doc. 432) are sustained in part and overruled in part .
This case is a products liability matter involving defective artificial hip implants
and was originally filed as part of a multidistrict litigation ("MDL"). (Doc. 321, at 4, 7). Defendant is comprised of several corporations that design, manufacture, market, promote, and sell medical devices. (Id. , at 4). Defendant designed, manufactured, marketed, promoted, and sold an artificial hip implant known as the Biomet M2a Magnum Hip System ("M2a Magnum"). (Id. ). Lori Nicholson ("plaintiff")3 is one of thousands of individuals who received an M2a Magnum artificial hip implant
, which she received to remedy severe pain she had in her natural hip. (Id. , at 5). Plaintiff experienced no complications during her hip replacement surgery, which was performed by Dr. Emile Li ("Dr. Li") on July 10, 2007, and had no complaints immediately after the surgery. (Id. , at 5–6). Indeed, plaintiff did not experience hip pain from 2008 to 2011, and she was able to return to normal activities and to her job. (Id. , at 6). In late 2011, however, plaintiff's hip pain returned, and she again sought Dr. Li's medical help. (Id. ). Based on his observations, Dr. Li concluded that a part of plaintiff's M2a Magnum hip implant "had migrated to a vertical orientation." (Id. ). Specifically, Dr. Li found that plaintiff had a "loose acetabular component status post left total hip." (Id. ). Dr. Li performed a revision surgery to correct the loose component. (Id. ). There were no complications during the surgery during which Dr. Li replaced the M2a Magnum implant with a metal-on-polyethylene ("metal-on-poly") implant, also manufactured by Biomet; the new implant appears to have been successful. (Id. ).
A nine-day jury trial was held from November 9, 2020, to November 20, 2020. (Docs. 396 & 418). The jury was instructed to consider plaintiff's design defect claim. (Doc. 397, at 21). Before the case was submitted to the jury, defendant moved for judgment as a matter of law on the design defect claim. (Doc. 407). The Court denied the motion. (Id. ). The case was then submitted to the jury. The jury returned a verdict in favor of plaintiff and awarded plaintiff $1,050,000 in compensatory damages and $2,500,000 in punitive damages. (Doc. 419).
Defendant renews its motion for judgment as a matter of law on plaintiff's design defect claim and on plaintiff's request for punitive damages. (Doc. 431, at 7). Defendant makes numerous arguments in support of its motion, several of which overlap with arguments it makes in its motion for a new trial. First, defendant argues plaintiff's design defect claim fails as a matter of law because plaintiff "failed to offer sufficient evidence to permit a reasonable jury to conclude that the M2a Magnum's design was defective." (Id. , at 11). Second, defendant argues plaintiff "failed to offer sufficient evidence to permit a reasonable jury to conclude that an alleged design defect in the M2a Magnum caused [plaintiff's] injuries." (Id. , at 17). Third, as to the punitive damages, defendant asserts plaintiff's punitive damages request fails because plaintiff "failed to offer sufficient evidence to permit a reasonable jury to conclude that an award of punitive damages was merited." (Id. , at 28). The Court will discuss the applicable law and then address each of these issues in turn.
Rule 50 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure establishes the standard for a court to grant a motion for judgment as a matter of law. It provides, in pertinent part:
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Miller v. Cartel
... ... in Johnson v. Georgia Highway Express, Inc. , 488 ... F.2d 714, 717-19 (5th Cir. 1974), to adjust the lodestar ... amount. Id ... v. J.T. Gibbons, ... Inc ., 482 U.S. 437, 445; Nicholson v. Biomet, ... Inc ., 537 F.Supp.3d 990, 1036 (N.D. Iowa 2021), ... aff'd, No. 21-2263, ... ...
-
Miller v. Cartel
... ... witness fees or attorney's fees ... Rimini St., Inc. v. Oracle USA, Inc., 139 S.Ct. 873, ... 877 (2019); see also W. Virginia Univ. Hosps., ... v. J.T. Gibbons, ... Inc ., 482 U.S. 437, 445; Nicholson v. Biomet, ... Inc ., 537 F.Supp.3d 990, 1036 (N.D. Iowa 2021), ... aff'd, No. 21-2263, ... ...
-
Miller v. Cartel
... ... witness fees or attorney's fees ... Rimini St., Inc. v. Oracle USA, Inc., 139 S.Ct. 873, ... 877 (2019); see also W. Virginia Univ. Hosps., ... v. J.T. Gibbons, ... Inc ., 482 U.S. 437, 445; Nicholson v. Biomet, ... Inc ., 537 F.Supp.3d 990, 1036 (N.D. Iowa 2021), ... aff'd, No. 21-2263, ... ...
-
Griner v. King
...encompass the requested fees, the Court does not permit recovery of those fees.” Liquid Cap. Exch., Inc., 2022 WL 15045058, at *12 (citing Nicholson, at 537 at 1036). 2. Defendants' Post-Offer Costs Defendants claim $4,495.69 in Post-Offer Costs. (Doc. 139-2, at 9, 10). These comprise multi......