PATRICIA ADELMANN-CHESTER, ET AL. Vs. JOHN N. KENT, D.D.S., LOUISIANA STATE UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF DENTISTRY AND FACULTY DENTAL PRACTICE, ET AL.
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
* NO. 2008-CA-0770 * COURT OF APPEAL * FOURTH CIRCUIT * PATRICIA ADELMANNCHESTER, ET AL. STATE OF LOUISIANA VERSUS JOHN N. KENT, D.D.S., LOUISIANA STATE UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF DENTISTRY AND FACULTY DENTAL PRACTICE, ET AL. * * ******* BELSOME, J. DISSENTS WITH REASONS. Summary judgment is improper where there are one or more issues of material fact. See La. Code Civ. P. art. 966(c). Thus, whether Dr. Kent is liable under the LPLA as a manufacturer is a factual question and not appropriate for summary judgment. A “manufacturer” is defined under La. R.S. 9:2800.53(1) as “a person or entity who is in the business of manufacturing a product for placement into trade or commerce.” La. R.S. 9:2800.53(1). “Manufacturing a product” is defined as “producing, making, fabricating, constructing, designing, remanufacturing, reconditioning, or refurbishing a product.” Id. (emphasis added); See also Cook v. United Container Machinery Co., 98-120 (La.App. 5 Cir. 5/27/98), 712 So.2d 307 (finding that the extent of an employee’s role in designing printer slotter, determinative of whether employer could be deemed a manufacturer under the LPLA, constituted issue of material fact precluding summary judgment). It is not disputed that Dr. Kent designed the shape of the glenoid fossa in the VK-I and VK-II, and, as the majority notes, obtained several design patents regarding the shape of the implants and drafted package inserts for some Vitek devices. I respectfully dissent.
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.
