Clayton Warmoth v. Medtronic, Inc. and Medtronic Minimed, Inc.

Oklahoma City, Oklahoma personal injury lawyers represented Plaintiff who sued Defendants on product liability theories.





This diversity jurisdiction action involved claims for strict product liability, negligence, breach of express warranty, and breach of implied warranty associated with two medical devices manufactured by Defendants and used together to treat diabetes: the Medtronic MiniMed 670G Insulin Pump and the MiniMed Infusion Set Defendants moved to dismiss all of Plaintiff's claims as to both devices, arguing the claims related to the Insulin Pump are preempted by federal law, and the claims related to the Infusion Set are insufficiently pleaded.



Plaintiff responded that the claims related to the Insulin Pump are not preempted, and that he has stated plausible claims related to the Infusion Set.



* * *





The Insulin Pump and Infusion Set are medical devices designed and manufactured by Defendants which are used together to deliver insulin to the body and help regulate blood sugar levels for individuals with diabetes. Plaintiff began using the Insulin Pump in 2018 to manage his Type 1 diabetes. On July 15, 2019, Plaintiff suffered a hyperglycemic episode due to insufficient insulin, which resulted in decreased motor functions and slurred speech. Plaintiff alleges a malfunction in the Insulin Pump or the Infusion Set caused his injuries.



The Insulin Pump was manufactured with a retainer ring designed to lock the individual's insulin cartridge into place in the pump's reservoir compartment. The Infusion Set consisted of a membrane and disposable plastic tubes which transport insulin from the pump to the individual's body. Id. Plaintiff alleges a defect in the retainer ring on the Insulin Pump prevented the insulin reservoir from locking into the pump when it was loaded, reducing the amount of insulin the pump supplied. Plaintiff alleged this specific defect was the basis for a November 2019 recall of the same kind of Insulin Pump he was using. Plaintiff did not specifically allege what defect existed or occurred in the Infusion Set he was using.



* * *





The Court notes at the outset some confusion about the nature of Plaintiff's claims, primarily whether he intended to assert a strict liability claim for design defect, manufacturing defect, or both. In the Complaint, Plaintiff alleges strict product liability and states he "hereby asserts a design defect claim pursuant to applicable Oklahoma law.” Compl. [Doc. No. 1] ¶ 36. However, in Plaintiff's Response, he argues he is also asserting a manufacturing defect claim. Resp. [Doc. No. 16] at 8. Plaintiff does not clearly assert a manufacturing defect claim in the Complaint, although the final paragraph of the strict liability claim alleges Plaintiff sustained injuries "[a]s a direct and proximate result of the design, manufacture and marketing defects. . .”



The Court finds the Complaint did not assert a claim for manufacturing defect. First, "[t]o state a manufacturing defect claim in Oklahoma, a plaintiff must allege that the defective product somehow deviated from its intended design,” which the Complaint does not do. See Wells v. Johnson & Johnson, 554 F.Supp.3d 1207, 1211 (W.D. Okla. 2021) (citing Wheeler v. HO Sports Inc., 232 F.3d 754, 756 (10th Cir. 2000)). Additionally, Plaintiff's strict liability allegations relate to the design of the product rather than an error in manufacturing. Compl. [Doc. No. 1] ¶¶ 41-43. See Wells, 554 F.Supp.3d at 1211 ("Here, Plaintiffs' allegations are more akin to a design defect, and thus, fail to state a claim for a manufacturing defect.”). Aside from a generic reference to a manufacturing defect, Plaintiff made no effort to assert that claim until his Response, and the Court will not consider a new claim which was not alleged in the Complaint.

Motion to dismiss sustained.