Case Name: Norma OLMO, Nelson Olmo, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. DAYOL, INC., C.R. Bard, Inc., Defendants-Appellees
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2018-02-07
Citations: 710 F. App'x 861
Docket Number: No. 17-11784
Parties: Norma OLMO, Nelson Olmo, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. DAYOL, INC., C.R. Bard, Inc., Defendants-Appellees.
Judges: Before MARCUS, ANDERSON, and HULL, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 710
Pages: 861–861

Head Matter:
Norma OLMO, Nelson Olmo, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. DAYOL, INC., C.R. Bard, Inc., Defendants-Appellees.
No. 17-11784
United States Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit.
(February 7, 2018)
Justin Parafínczuk, Marcus John Susen, Koch Parafinczuk Wolf Susen, Fort Laud-erdale, FL, for Plaintiffs-Appellants
Michael Kevin Brown, Reed Smith, LLP, Los Angeles, CA, James Christopher Martin, Reed Smith, LLP, Pittsburgh, PA Edward M. Mullins, Reed Smith, LLP, Miami, FL, Eric L. Aexander, Jesse J. Ash, Matthew D. Jacobson, Reed Smith, LLP, Washington, DC, Edgardo Ferreyra, Jr., Luks Santaniello Petrillo & Jones, LLC, Miami, FL, Amy E. Furness, Carlton Fields Jorden Burt, PA, Miami, FL, David J. Walz, Carlton Fields Jorden Burt, PA, Tampa, FL, M. Patrick Yingling, Reed Smith, LLP, Chicago, IL, for Defendants-Appellees
Before MARCUS, ANDERSON, and HULL, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
We have had the benefit of oral argument and have carefully reviewed the briefs and the summary judgment record in this case. The learned intermediary doctrine provides that the manufacturer's duty to warn runs to the physician, not directly to the patient. If the physician had independent knowledge of the risk that caused the plaintiffs injuries — substantially the same knowledge as an adequate warning should have communicated — then the plaintiff cannot prevail on a failure-to-warn claim. Christopher v. Cutter Laboratories, 53 F.3d 1184, 1192 (11th Cir. 1995). We agree with the district court that the physician who implanted the instant patch had such independent knowledge. With respect to the patch that was implanted in plaintiff, there is insufficient evidence that the ring in the patch buckled.
For the foregoing reasons, including reasons fully explained at oral' argument, the judgment of the district court is
AFFIRMED.