Pursuant to 5 T H C IR . R. 47.5, the court has determined that thi s opinio n should not * be publishe d an d is not precedent except under the limited circu mstance s set forth in 5 T H C IR . R. 47.5 .4. 

### INTHE UNI TED S TATESCOU RT OFAPPEALS

FORTHE FIFTH CIRCU IT

N o. 08- 30893 Su m m ar y Cal endar
HER M AN RE ED P l a i n ti ff - A p p ell a n t v. BI OMET OR T HOP ED I CS I NC D efen da n t- A pp el l ee

A p p ea lf

rom the U n i ted S tates D i stri ct C ou rt f o rt he W e s t e r n Di s t r i c to f Lo ui s i ana U SD C N o. 6: 06- C V

- 544
B ef ore W IE N E R , ST E W A R T , an d C L E M E N T , C i rcui tJu dg es . P E R C U R I A M: * P la in t if f- A p p e ll a n tH e r m a n R e e d(“ R e e d ” ) a p p e a ls th e d is t r ic tc o u r t ’s gran tof sum m ary j u dg m en tin favor of D efen da n t
- A pp el l ee B i om etO rt h oped i cs I n c . ( “ B i o me t” )
. F o rt h e f o l l o w i n gr e a s o n s , w e a f f i r m. F A CT S A ND P ROC E E DI NGS I n J une 2 00 4, Ree d f r ac t ur e d hi s hi p i n a n a ut o m o bi l e a cci de nt
. The
o r th o p e d ic s u r g e o n a t t h e h o s p ita l w h e r e h e w a s tr e a te d im p la n te d a V a r i-A n g le United States Court of App eals

Fifth Circuit 

### F I L E D April1, 2009 Cha rl es R. F ulb ru g e II I ClerkN o. 08- 30893

Reed does not challen gethe di strict court’s grant of summary ju dgment onhis cl aim 1 that the device faile d to conform to Biomet’s express warranty; he has thu s waived th at issue onapp eal. See Leasehold Expense Recovery, Inc. v. Mothers Work, I nc. , 3 3 1 F .3 d 4 5 2 , 4 6 2n .4 (5thC ir. 200 3). Therefore, we review only the district court’s grant of summaryj udgment on Ree d’ s “co n structionor co mp os ition” cl aim
. 2 H i p Sc r e w ( “VH S” ) de vi c e al l e ge dl y m anufac t ur e d b y Bi o m e tt o r e pa i rhi s hi p. A p p r o x i ma t e l ye i g h tmo n t h s a f t e rt h e s u r g e r y , a n x - r a ys h o we dt h a tt h e V HS de vi c e ha d f

r ac t ur e d; a s a r e s ul t , Ree d un de r w e nta s e c o nd h i p o pe r at i o n. R eed f i l ed su i tagainstB i om etun der t h e L ou i si an a P rodu ct s Liabi l i t y A ct (“L P L A”), c la im in gth a t th e V H S d e v ic e im p la n te din h is h ip w a s “u n r e a s o n a b ly da n gerous i n const ructi on or com posi t i on ” an d/or “ di d n otconf orm t o an express w ar r ant y” m ad e b y Bi o m e t
. Bi o m e t f i l e d a m o t i o n f

o rs um m ar y j udg m e nt
. The di st ri ct court gran t ed t h e m ot i on , h ol di n g t h at R eed had provid e d n o ev i den ce of a defec t i n t h e V H S dev i ce’ s “ constr u ct i on or c om posi t i on ” or of an y “ exp ress w arran t y” m ad e by B i om et
. R eed ap pea l s. 1 S TA NDARD OF RE VI EW “W e rev i ew a g ra n t of su m m a ryj u d gm en t de no vo , a p p l y i n gt h e s a me st andard a s t he di st r i c tc our t
. ” B ro u ss a rdv. Proct er & G am bl e Co. , 517 F. 3d 767 , 769 ( 5th C i r. 200 8)
. Su m m ary j u dg m en ti s app ropri ate “i f t h e pl ea d in gs, t h e di scovery and di scl osure m ater i al s on f i l e, an d an y af

f i da vi t s s h ow t h at t h ere i s n o g en u i n e issu e a s t o a n y m a terialfa ct an dtha t t h e m ov a n t i s en ti tl ed to j u d gm en t a s a m a tter o f l a w . ” F ED . R. C IV . P
. 5 6 (c ). “W e r e v ie w a ll e v id e n c e in th e l i gh t m ost fav ora b l e to th e n on m ov i n g p a rty.” B roussard , 517 F. 3d at769. DI S CU S S I ON T o m a i n tain a claim tha t a p rod u ct i s “u n r ea son a b l y d a n ge rou s” i n i ts

“ c ons t r uct i on o rc om pos i t i on” under t he L PL A , a pl ai nt i f f m usts how t hat , “ at t he t i m e t he pr o duc tl e f ti t s m anufac t ur e r ’ s c o nt r o l , t he pr o duc tde vi at e d i n a m at e r i alw ayf

r o m t he m anufac t ur e r ’ s s pe c i f i c at i o ns o rpe r f

o r m anc e s t and ar dsN o. 08- 30893

3 f o rt h e p r o d u c to rf

r o m o t h e r w i s e i d e n t i c a lp r o d u c t s ma n u fa c t u r e db yt h e s a me m a n u factu rer.” L A . R EV . S TAT . A NN . § 9 :2 8 0 0 .5 5 ; se e a lso S ta h l v. No v a rtis Phar m . Cor

p. , 283 F
. 3d 254 , 261 ( 5th C ir. 200 2)
. Th e “ constr u ct i on or com posi t i on ” provi si on of t h e L P L At h u s “ provi des a rem edyf or dam ages cau sed b y a pr od u ct t h a t i s d efective du e to a m i stak e in th e m a n u factu ri n g p roce s s .” I d. at263. In sup port of

i t s m ot i on f

or s u m m a ry j u dg m en t , B i om etsubm i t t ed af f i da vi t s and reports o f tw o expert w i t n esses w h o exam i n ed the V H S devi ce ex p l a n ted f

rom R ee dan dcon cl u d e d th a t t h ere w a s n o m a n u factu ri n g d efect. Bi o m e ta l s o sub m i t t e d po r t i o ns of t he de po s i t i o n o f

Ree d’ s o r t ho pe di c s ur ge o n. S h e testi fi ed tha t t h e V H S de vice m ost l i k ely b rok e d u e to R ee d ’ s fa i l u re to
c o m p l y wi t h h e r i n s t r u c t i o n s t o l i m i t t h e we i g h t p l a c e d o n h i s h i p a n do n t he i m pl an t
. Th eref

ore, B i om etm eti t s i n i t i alevi den t i ary bu rden on su m m ary j u d gm en t; the bu rd en the n “sh i ft [ed]” t o R ee d “to p rod u ce evide n ce or de sign a te sp ecif i c fa cts sh ow i n g th e ex i sten ce of a g en u i n e i ssu e for t ri a l
. ” F ordoch e, I

n c. v. T exaco, I n c. , 4 6 3 F .3 d3 8 8 , 3 9 2 (5 th C ir . 2 0 0 6 ) (q u o ta tio n o m itt e d ). R e e d ’s o p p o s it io n to s u m m a r y j u d g m e n to n lyc h a ll e n g e dB io m e t ’s
c o n te n tio n th a t h e d idn o t fo llo w h is d o c to r ’ s in s tr u c tio n s . O n a p p e a l, R e e d s till
m ai n t ai n s t h at s u m m ary j u dg m en tw as i m properl y gran t ed becau se there are

“ di spu t ed i ssues of

fact” as t o w h et h er or n ot R eed’ s ph ysi ci an i n st ructed hi m on t h e proper use of

t h e V H S devi ce and w h et h er ornot R eed f ol l ow ed those i n s t r u c t i o n s . H o we v e r , i n t h e a b s e n c e o f a n ye v i d e n c e o f

a d e fe c ti n t h e V HS dev i ce i t sel f, t h ese are n oti ssues of “ m ater ia lfact” becau se t h ey w ou l d n ot “affect th e ou tcom e of the su i t. ” Id
. R egard l ess of t h e i n st ructi on s given t o R eed
an d h i s c om pl i an ce w i t h t h ose i n st ructi on s, R eed h as no tpr e sented an y evi den ce of a “ constr u ct i on or com posi t i on ” defec t i n t h e V H S dev i ce, t h at w ou l d su ggest
a m ater i aldevi ati on f rom B i om et ’ s produ ct i on st an da rds or i den t i calprodu ct s. Se eSt ahl , 2 8 3 F .3 da t 2 6 3
.N o. 08- 30893

4 Acc o r di ngly, Ree d ha s fai l e d t o s et fo r t h s pe c i f i c fac t s s ho w i ng t he
e x is te n c e o f a g e n u in e is s u e o f m a te r ia l fa c t, a n dth e d is tr ic t c o u r t p r o p e r ly g r a n te ds u m m a r yju d g m e n t. I d. CO NC L US I ON F o rth e fo r e g o in gre a s o n s , th e ju d g m e n t o f th e d is tr i c t c o u r t is AF F I RMED.