Lori Nicholson v. Biomet, Inc.

Cedar Rapids, Iowa personal injury lawyers represented Plaintiffs, who sued Defendants on product liability theories.



This products liability case arises out of the multidistrict litigation1 ("MDL”)

proceedings regarding Biomet's M2a Magnum hip-replacement device. After

experiencing complications from a hip replacement surgery using the M2a Magnum,

Lori Nicholson 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 Nicholson's favor, concluding the M2a Magnum was defectively designed.

The jury also awarded Nicholson punitive damages. Biomet moved for a new trial

and renewed its motion for judgment as a matter of law, but the district court2 denied

these motions. For the reasons set forth below, we affirm.



I. Background



Nicholson's left hip was replaced in 2007 with Biomet's M2a Magnum—a

large metal-on-metal articulation total hip replacement device. About four years

later, Nicholson returned to her surgeon, Dr. Emile Li, with hip pain and a cyst at

the crease of her left hip. Dr. Li determined Nicholson's symptoms were caused by

the M2a Magnum's loosening and migration. Dr. Li attributed the cyst and

migration to metal-on-metal wear and the release of metal ions. Dr. Li tested

Nicholson's chromium and cobalt levels through a blood draw and discovered

Nicholson's chromium level was six times the normal rate. Dr. Li diagnosed

Nicholson with metallosis—deposition of metal debris into bodily fluids and

tissue—and concluded the M2a Magnum had failed. Dr. Li recommended

Nicholson have a revision surgery to replace the metal-on-metal M2a Magnum with

a metal-on-polyethylene ("metal-on-poly”) device. Dr. Li performed Nicholson's

revision surgery months later without complication, and Nicholson's condition

improved.



Nicholson later sued Biomet, asserting multiple claims—including one for

defective design.3 Nicholson also sought punitive damages, alleging Biomet knew

the M2a Magnum's metal-on-metal design was defective yet continued to design,

manufacture, and market the device with a conscious and deliberate disregard for

the rights and safety of consumers. Biomet moved for summary judgment on all

claims. The district court granted summary judgment in favor of Biomet on all

claims except for Nicholson's defective design and punitive damages claims.

Among the claims on which the district court awarded summary judgment to Biomet

was a product liability claim based on a failure to warn. The district court held the

warnings and instructions for the device were adequate as a matter of law.

The case proceeded to a jury trial on the defective design claim and punitive

damages. The jury found for Nicholson, finding the alleged design defect of the

M2a Magnum caused Nicholson's injuries, and awarded $1,050,000 in

compensatory damages. The jury further found Biomet's conduct constituted a

willful and wanton reckless disregard for the rights and safety of consumers and

awarded Nicholson $2,500,000 in punitive damages.



Biomet then filed two post-trial motions. First, Biomet moved for a new trial

claiming the district court erred in admitting evidence and refusing to give

appropriate jury instructions. Second, Biomet moved for judgment as a matter of

law on Nicholson's defective design claim and on Nicholson's request for punitive

damages. The district court denied both motions. Biomet now appeals the district

court's denial of these post-trial motions.



* * *



Biomet simply failed to produce evidence at trial that its warnings or

instructions for the M2a Magnum created a defense to Nicholson's design defect

claim. The district court possesses a broad discretion in instructing the jury. While

the district court's jury instructions "must fairly and adequately represent the law of

the forum state,” it is "not required to instruct on issues that do not find support in

the record.” McCoy v. Augusta Fiberglass Coatings, Inc., 593 F.3d 737, 744 (8th

Cir. 2010) (quoting Brown v. Sandals Resorts Int'l., 284 F.3d 949, 953 (8th Cir.

2002)). Here, the trial record is void of any attempt by Biomet to suggest the M2a

Magnum's warnings and instructions negated Nicholson's claim that a reasonable

alternative design existed.

Affirmed

Mari Truman and Dr. John Cuckler

Dr. Li