Lori Nicholson v. Biomet, Inc., No. 21-2263 (8th Cir. 2022)
Annotate this Case
This product liability case arises out of the multidistrict litigation (“MDL”) proceedings regarding Biomet’s M2a Magnum hip-replacement device. After experiencing complications from a hip replacement surgery using the M2a Magnum, Plaintiff sued Biomet, Inc., Biomet Orthopedics, LLC, Biomet Manufacturing LLC, and Biomet U.S. Reconstruction, LLC (collectively, “Biomet”), alleging multiple claims, including defective design. A jury ultimately found in Plaintiff’s favor, concluding the M2a Magnum was defectively designed. The jury also awarded Plaintiff punitive damages. Biomet moved for a new trial and renewed its motion for judgment as a matter of law, but the district court denied these motions.
The Eighth Circuit affirmed. The court explained that the district court’s summary judgment ruling concluded the M2a Magnum’s warnings and instructions were legally sufficient in the context of Plaintiff’s failure to warn claim. This ruling has no bearing on whether the M2a Magnum’s warnings and instructions prove an alternative design was unreasonable or would not have prevented the foreseeable risks it posed. Further, at trial, Plaintiff introduced evidence suggesting Biomet should have tested the M2a Magnum device before introducing it to the market but failed to do so. Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the verdict, a reasonable jury could have found in favor of Plaintiff on the issue of punitive damages. Thus, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the verdict, the district court did not err in denying Biomet’s motion for judgment as a matter of law on punitive damages
Court Description: [Grasz, Author, with Smith, Chief Judge, and Wollman, Circuit Judge] Civil case - Products Liability - Biomet M2a Mangum Hip-replacement. The jury verdict finding defendant's hip-replacement device was defectively designed and awarding plaintiff compensatory and punitive damages is affirmed; even if the district court erred in excluding data from the government MAUDE database on medical devices, it is unlikely the information would have substantially swayed the jury; plaintiff's evidence on post-operation date data on metal-on-metal devices was properly admitted to prove causation; the evidence defendant sought to introduce on post-market data was not related to causation and plaintiff's evidence did not open the door for its admission; plaintiff's experts' testimony was properly admitted under Rule 703; the district court did not abuse its discretion in refusing to give defendant's instruction regarding the court's earlier ruling on plaintiff's failure-to-warn claim, because the case, as presented to the jury, did not involve the adequacy of defendant's warnings and instructions; the punitive damage award was supported by the evidence, and the district court did not err in denying defendant's motion for judgment as a matter of law on the claim.
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.