Seals v. Wright Med. Techs.
| Decision Date | 07 October 2022 |
| Docket Number | 4:20-cv-01656-SRC |
| Parties | WILLIE SEALS, Plaintiff(s), v. WRIGHT MEDICAL TECHNOLOGIES, INC., Defendant(s). |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Eastern District of Missouri |
Willie Seals had his left hip replaced with a Wright Medical hip implant. Seals later encountered complications requiring surgery, this time to replace the first implant with another. Seals claims that Wright Medical's metal-on-metal hip implant caused him severe injuries; Wright Medical claims that the FDA approved its at-the-time “state of the art” hip implants, and that Seals's doctor was aware of the risks and benefits of metal-on-metal implants when he selected it. As with most product-liability claims the parties hired experts to provide various testimony. In this order, the Court considers Wright Medical's [60] [62] [64] motions to exclude Seals's experts, Seals's [59] motion to exclude Wright Medical's experts, and Wright Medical's [66] motion for summary judgment.
In addressing the parties' Rule 702 motions below, the Court mentions the applicable facts as proffered by the parties. The Court finds the following facts undisputed for purposes of summary judgment.
Seals began experiencing pain in his left hip after breaking his pelvis and developing post-traumatic arthritis due to the fracture. Doc. 78 at ¶ 6. Seals went to an orthopedic surgeon, Dr. Robert Barrack, for evaluation. Id. Dr. Barrack recommended a total left-hip replacement, and Seals elected to undergo the surgery. Id. at ¶¶ 7-8.
Dr. Barrack performed Seals's total left-hip replacement in January 2010. Id. at ¶ 8. In August 2014, Dr. Barrack and Seals at least discussed the possibility of a revision surgery (a surgery to remove and replace the original implant) because of Seals's elevated metal-ion levels and increasing pain. Id. at ¶ 26. The parties disagree whether Dr. Barrack recommended a revision surgery at that time or whether Seals and Dr. Barrack agreed to take a wait-and-see approach. Id. Ultimately, in July 2020, Dr. Barrack performed a revision surgery. Id. at ¶¶ 27-28.
A hip joint has two main components, the ball and the socket; the ball is the spherical end of the femur bone, which inserts into the rounded bone structure of the pelvic bone, i.e. the socket. A hip implant consists of two main components, the head and the socket (consisting of a shell and liner), which mimic the corresponding bones. See Doc. 78 at ¶¶ 2, 5, 9; Doc. 67-2 at pp. 6-7. Wright Medical Technology, Inc. manufactured certain lines of hip-replacement components including the Dynasty, Conserve, and Profemur lines. Id. at ¶ 3. The Conserve head component and the Dynasty liner component implanted in Seals's 2010 surgery replace the natural hip joint. Id. at ¶ 5. Wright Medical made both the Conserve head component and Dynasty liner component from cobalt chromium metal alloys. Id. at ¶ 5. Thus, the Dynasty and Conserve products belong to the “metal-on-metal” category of hip prostheses, meaning the metal head inserts into, and rubs against, the metal socket. Id. at ¶¶ 4-5. The FDA cleared Seals's hip-replacement components for commercial distribution before Dr. Barrack implanted them into Seals. Id. at ¶ 10.
Dr. Barrack testified that at the time of Seals's initial hip-replacement surgery he (Dr. Barrack) was aware of risks associated with metal-on-metal hip implants, “such as release of metal ions, adverse local tissue reactions to metal, elevated ion levels, and pseudotumor reaction to metal components.” Doc. 78 at ¶ 22; Doc. 67-5 at pp. 9:1-10:4, 22:9-24:1.[1]
Federal law governs the admissibility of expert testimony in diversity cases. Clark v. Heidrick, 150 F.3d 912, 914 (8th Cir. 1998). In Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc., the United States Supreme Court interpreted the then-effective version of Rule 702 of the Federal Rules of Evidence to require district courts to be certain that expert evidence based on scientific, technical, or other specialized knowledge is “not only relevant, but reliable.” 509 U.S. 579, 590 (1993). The district court must make a “preliminary assessment of whether the reasoning or methodology underlying the testimony is scientifically valid and of whether that reasoning or methodology properly can be applied to the facts in issue.” Id. at 592-93.
Post-Daubert amendments to Rule 702 clarify the standard:
Fed. R. Evid. 702; see also Fed.R.Evid. 702 advisory committee's note to 2000 amendment .
The Eighth Circuit has fleshed out the Rule 702 standards. Proposed expert testimony must meet three criteria to be admissible under Rule 702. Lauzon v. Senco Prods., Inc., 270 F.3d 681, 686 (8th Cir. 2001). “Second, the proposed witness must be qualified to assist the finder of fact.” Id. (citation omitted). “Third, the proposed evidence must be reliable or trustworthy in an evidentiary sense, so that, if the finder of fact accepts it as true, it provides the assistance the finder of fact requires.” Id. (internal quotation marks omitted). To meet the third criterion, the testimony must be “based on sufficient facts or data” and be “the product of reliable principles and methods,” and the expert must have “reliably applied the principles and methods to the facts of the case.” Fed.R.Evid. 702(b)-(d).
“Federal Rule of Evidence 702 reflects an attempt to liberalize the rules governing the admission of expert testimony.” Shuck v. CNH Am., LLC, 498 F.3d 868, 874 (8th Cir. 2007) (citing Lauzon, 270 F.3d at 686). The rule “favors admissibility if the testimony will assist the trier of fact.” Clark, 150 F.3d at 915. Doubt regarding “whether an expert's testimony will be useful should generally be resolved in favor of admissibility.” Id. (citation and internal quotation omitted).
Under Rule 702, the trial court has gatekeeping responsibility to “ensur[e] that an expert's testimony both rests on a reliable foundation and is relevant to the task at hand.” Kumho Tire Co. v. Carmichael, 526 U.S. 137, 141 (1999) (citing Daubert, 509 U.S. at 597). “When making the reliability and relevancy determinations, a district court may consider: (1) whether the theory or technique can be or has been tested; (2) whether the theory or technique has been subjected to peer review or publication; (3) whether the theory or technique has a known or potential error rate and standards controlling the technique's operation; and (4) whether the theory or technique is generally accepted in the scientific community.” Russell v. Whirlpool Corp., 702 F.3d 450, 456 (8th Cir. 2012) (citing Daubert, 509 U.S. at 593-94). “This evidentiary inquiry is meant to be flexible and fact specific, and a court should use, adapt, or reject Daubert factors as the particular case demands.” Unrein v. Timesavers, Inc., 394 F.3d 1008, 1011 (8th Cir. 2005). “There is no single requirement for admissibility as long as the proffer indicates that the expert evidence is reliable and relevant.” Id.
As a general rule “the factual basis of an expert opinion goes to the credibility of the testimony, not the admissibility, and it is up to the opposing party to examine the factual basis for the opinion in cross-examination.” Nebraska Plastics, Inc. v. Holland Colors Americas, Inc., 408 F.3d 410, 416 (8th Cir. 2005) (quoting Hartley v. Dillard's, Inc., 310 F.3d 1054, 1061 (8th Cir. 2002)). However, “if the expert's opinion is so fundamentally unsupported that it can offer no assistance to the jury, it must be excluded.” Id. (citing Hartley, 310 F.3d at 1061). An expert opinion is fundamentally unsupported when it “fails to consider the relevant facts of the case.” Id.
Seals's expert Dr. George S. Kantor, is a medical doctor and licensed orthopedic surgeon who, during his 35 years of practice, has performed more than 5,000 total-hip procedures, including many revision procedures. Doc. 75-1 at pp. 1-4; 28-34. He has been board certified since 1986 by the American Board of Orthopaedic Surgery.
Seals retained Dr. Kantor as a medical and orthopedic-surgery expert. Doc. 75-1 at p. 5. In his report, Dr. Kantor “provide[d] fact and/or opinion testimony regarding the concept, development, design and performance of the [metal on metal] bearing surfaces, including those manufactured by Wright Medical, Inc.” Id. He also “[gave] general opinions regarding damages and/or injuries that may occur due to metal on metal bearing surface failures and toxic metal ions generated by total hip arthroplasty systems,” including “metal ions generated by biochemical and mechanical interactions from modular junctions.” Id.
Wright Medical moves under Rule 702 to exclude Dr. Kantor's opinions that its Dynasty devices are defectively...
To continue reading
Request your trial