Court Opinion

ID: 9954811
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-03-27 00:00:34.424956+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T08:15:03.327620
License: Public Domain

Case: 23-50274           Document: 70-1         Page: 1     Date Filed: 03/26/2024

          United States Court of Appeals
               for the Fifth Circuit                                         United States Court of Appeals
                                                                                      Fifth Circuit
                                  ____________                                      FILED
                                                                              March 26, 2024
                                   No. 23-50274
                                                                                  Lyle W. Cayce
                                  ____________                                         Clerk

GeorgAnn Oglesby; Stephen Oglesby,

                                                               Plaintiffs—Appellants,

                                         versus

Medtronic, Incorporated; Medtronic USA,
Incorporated; Integra LifeSciences Corporation,

                                           Defendants—Appellees.
                  ______________________________

                  Appeal from the United States District Court
                       for the Western District of Texas
                           USDC No. 5:20-CV-1267
                  ______________________________

Before King, Ho, and Engelhardt, Circuit Judges.
Per Curiam:*
      GeorgAnn Oglesby sued Medtronic, Inc., Medtronic USA, Inc., and
Integra LifeSciences Corporation, asserting manufacturing defect, negli-
gence, and failure-to-warn claims after a medical device implanted in
Oglesby’s body disintegrated. The district court granted summary judgment
in favor of Medtronic and Integra. We affirm.

      _____________________
      *
          This opinion is not designated for publication. See 5th Cir. R. 47.5.
Case: 23-50274        Document: 70-1       Page: 2   Date Filed: 03/26/2024

                                  No. 23-50274

       In July 2019, Oglesby had surgery to address a cyst on her cervical
spine. During the surgery, Oglesby’s physician implanted a Durepair Dura
Regeneration Matrix—a medical device designed to be used as a patch to re-
pair dura matter, which is a membrane protecting the brain and spinal cord.
The Durepair device was manufactured by Integra and sold by Medtronic.
       Soon after the surgery, Oglesby experienced severe headaches and
other serious symptoms. Oglesby underwent another surgery in which her
physician discovered that the Durepair patch had largely disintegrated, caus-
ing a cerebrospinal fluid leak.
       Oglesby and her husband sued Medtronic in Texas state court.
Medtronic removed the case to federal court, and Oglesby later amended her
complaint to include Integra as a defendant. She asserts manufacturing
defect, negligence, and failure-to-warn claims.
       Medtronic and Integra both filed motions for summary judgment.
The magistrate judge’s report and recommendation concluded (1) that
Oglesby’s manufacturing defect and negligence claims failed because she did
not identify a specific defect in the Durepair product and (2) that Oglesby’s
failure-to-warn claim failed because Oglesby could not show that her doctor
would have read the warning even if an adequate warning was provided. The
district court adopted the magistrate judge’s report and recommendation,
granted both summary judgment motions, and dismissed the case. Oglesby
appealed.
       We review a district court’s grant of summary judgment de novo.
Norman v. Bodum USA, Inc., 44 F.4th 270, 272 (5th Cir. 2022). Courts grant
summary judgment “if the movant shows that there is no genuine dispute as
to any material fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of
law.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(a). Summary judgment is inappropriate,
however, if, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the

                                       2
Case: 23-50274        Document: 70-1       Page: 3    Date Filed: 03/26/2024

                                 No. 23-50274

nonmovant, “a reasonable jury could return a verdict for the nonmoving
party.” Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 248 (1986).
       Oglesby’s claims are governed by Texas law. We first address her
manufacturing defect claim. “A manufacturing defect exists when a product
deviates, in its construction or quality, from the specifications or planned
output in a manner that renders it unreasonably dangerous.” Ford Motor Co.
v. Ridgway, 135 S.W.3d 598, 600 (Tex. 2004). “A plaintiff must prove that
the product was defective when it left the hands of the manufacturer and that
the defect was a producing cause of the plaintiff’s injuries.” Id.
       While “[a] manufacturing defect may be established exclusively
through circumstantial evidence,” Norman, 44 F.4th at 272, product failure
alone is not enough to prevail on a manufacturing defect claim. See Ford
Motor Co. v. Ledesma, 242 S.W.3d 32, 42 (Tex. 2007). Instead, the plaintiff
must identify a specific defect in how the product was manufactured. See
Gharda USA, Inc. v. Control Sols., Inc., 464 S.W.3d 338, 352 (Tex. 2015) (“To
be successful on a manufacturing defect claim, the plaintiff must identify a
specific defect by competent evidence and rule out other possible causes of
the damage.”); Ledesma, 242 S.W.3d at 42 (“While a products liability claim
does not of course require proof of manufacturer negligence, the deviation
from design that caused the injury must be identified.”).
       However, Oglesby has not attempted to identify any specific way in
which the Durepair product deviated from its design. She acknowledges as
much in her briefing, which states that she “has not pointed to the specific
mechanism by which the Durepair device was defective.” Instead, she
argues that the law does not require her to allege a specific defect, relying
heavily on older cases from this court and the Texas courts of appeals. See
Ayres v. Sears, Roebuck & Co., 789 F.2d 1173, 1175 (5th Cir. 1986) (stating that
plaintiffs “need not establish the specific feature which made the product

                                       3
Case: 23-50274       Document: 70-1      Page: 4    Date Filed: 03/26/2024

                                No. 23-50274

defective”). See also Bell Aerospace Corp. v. Anderson, 478 S.W.2d 191, 197
(Tex. Civ. App.—El Paso 1972, writ ref’d n.r.e.); Baxter Healthcare Corp. v.
Grimes, No. 05-95-01682-CV, 1998 WL 548729, *10 (Tex. App.—Dallas
Aug. 31, 1998, no pet.).
       But “[t]o determine Texas law, this court looks first to the final
decisions of the Texas Supreme Court.” Austin v. Kroger Tex. L.P., 746 F.3d
191, 196 (5th Cir. 2014). In recent years, the Texas Supreme Court has
repeatedly stated that identifying a specific defect is essential to a
manufacturing defect claim. See Gharda USA, 464 S.W.3d at 352; Ledesma,
242 S.W.3d at 42; Nissan Motor Co. v. Armstrong, 145 S.W.3d 131, 137 (Tex.
2004) (“[A] specific defect must be identified by competent evidence.”). See
also Norman, 44 F.4th at 272 (“[P]laintiffs must allege a specific deviation
from the product’s intended design that allegedly caused the injury.”).
       Oglesby points to evidence indicating that the Durepair patch was not
designed to dissolve, but that it nevertheless sometimes disintegrates. But
none of this evidence establishes a specific manufacturing defect. See
Ledesma, 242 S.W.3d at 42 (noting that deviation from design “serves the
essential purpose of distinguishing a manufacturing defect from a design
defect”); Norman, 44 F.4th at 272 (“In a manufacturing defect case, . . . the
plaintiff must present proof of a manufacturer’s intended design, from which
the actual product in question deviated as a result of a defect in the
manufacturing process.”).
       Oglesby also cites expert testimony that, “within a reasonabl[e]
degree of engineering and scientific probability, and on a more-likely-than-
not basis, the Subject Durepair contained a manufacturing defect and/or
reacted adversely with the Adherus sealant which led to its ‘disintegration,’
as noted by [Oglesby’s physician].” But this testimony also does not
establish the specific manufacturing defect that allegedly caused the

                                     4
Case: 23-50274         Document: 70-1         Page: 5     Date Filed: 03/26/2024

                                    No. 23-50274

disintegration. Nor does it support an inference that such a defect, as
opposed to an adverse reaction with the sealant, more likely than not caused
the disintegration. “When the circumstances are equally consistent with
either of two facts, neither fact may be inferred.” City of Keller v. Wilson, 168
S.W.3d 802, 813 (Tex. 2005) (internal quotation omitted).1
       While a specific defect may be proven by circumstantial evidence, that
does not eliminate the requirement to allege the existence of a specific defect
in the first place. Oglesby failed to do so. Under Texas law, this fact alone
means that her manufacturing defect claim cannot succeed. The district
court therefore correctly granted summary judgment for Integra and
Medtronic on Oglesby’s manufacturing defect claim.
       Oglesby’s negligence claim fails for the same reason. “While strict
liability focuses on the condition of the product, negligence looks at the acts
of the manufacturer and determines if it exercised ordinary care in design and
production.” Am. Tobacco Co. v. Grinnell, 951 S.W.2d 420, 437 (Tex. 1997)
(cleaned up). But “a manufacturer logically cannot be held liable for failing
to exercise ordinary care when producing a product that is not defective.”
Garrett v. Hamilton Standard Controls, Inc., 850 F.2d 253, 257 (5th Cir. 1988).
Oglesby points to the doctrine of res ipsa loquitor, but this doctrine does not
relieve plaintiffs of their burden to allege a specific defect. See Funk v. Stryker
Corp., 631 F.3d 777, 782 (5th Cir. 2011) (holding that the plaintiff failed to
state a manufacturing defect claim because the complaint “d[id] not specify
the manufacturing defect,” notwithstanding the plaintiff’s invocation of the
res ipsa loquitor doctrine).

       _____________________
       1
        Oglesby contends that the district court improperly weighed the evidence under
the merits-stage preponderance-of-the-evidence standard instead of using the proper
summary judgment standard under Rule 56. But, as explained above, under Texas law,
Oglesby’s evidence is legally insufficient for a reasonable jury to find in her favor.

                                          5
Case: 23-50274        Document: 70-1        Page: 6    Date Filed: 03/26/2024

                                  No. 23-50274

       That leaves Oglesby’s failure-to-warn claim. Because she didn’t
object to the magistrate judge’s recommendation on this issue, we review for
plain error. See Wallace v. Mississippi, 43 F.4th 482, 494–95 (5th Cir. 2022)
(“[I]t has long been established that, when the district court has not made an
independent review of the record, failure to object to an issue in the R & R,
when warned of the requirement to file timely objections, results in plain-
error review applying to that issue when raised in our court.”) (citation
omitted). Under plain-error review, among other requirements, “the legal
error must be clear or obvious, rather than subject to reasonable dispute.”
Puckett v. United States, 556 U.S. 129, 135 (2009).
       “Generally, a manufacturer is required to provide an adequate
warning to the end users of its product if it knows or should know of any
potential harm that may result from the use of its product.” Centocor, Inc. v.
Hamilton, 372 S.W.3d 140, 153–54 (Tex. 2012).               Under the learned
intermediary doctrine, which “generally applies within the context of a
physician-patient relationship,” the manufacturer “fulfill[s] its duty to warn
end users of its product’s potential risks by providing an adequate warning to
the prescribing physician.” Id. at 142. However, even if a warning is
inadequate, the plaintiff must still show that the failure to warn was the
“producing cause” of the plaintiff’s injuries. Id. at 170. “In the [learned
intermediary] context, causation entails two distinct factual predicates: first,
that the doctor would have read or encountered the adequate warning; and
second that the adequate warning would have altered his treatment decision
for, or risk-related disclosures to, the patient.” In re DePuy Orthopaedics, Inc.,
888 F.3d 753, 775 (5th Cir. 2018) (emphasis and footnote omitted).
       We agree with Medtronic and Integra that Oglesby did not establish a
genuine dispute of material fact on causation. Oglesby’s physician testified
that he could not recall reading a product manual or any other Medtronic
resources about the Durepair product, that he “probably” did not read the

                                        6
Case: 23-50274        Document: 70-1          Page: 7   Date Filed: 03/26/2024

                                 No. 23-50274

Durepair product’s instructions for use when preparing for Oglesby’s
surgery or when he first learned about Durepair, and that he “maybe” had
not ever read the instructions for use.
       Oglesby therefore cannot show that an adequate warning would have
prevented her physician from using the product. See Pustejovsky v. Pliva, Inc.,
623 F.3d 271, 277 (5th Cir. 2010) (“Dr. Collini did not recall ever reading the
package insert for the drug or consulting the Physician’s Desk Reference.
Her lack of memory, of course, does not preclude the possibility that she had
read these materials, but neither can it sustain Pustejovsky’s [summary
judgment] burden.”). Oglesby nonetheless contends that she has established
a genuine dispute of material fact because her physician cut the Durepair
device to size before implanting it in Oglesby’s body. According to Oglesby,
this indicates that he did read the Durepair instructions. But her physician
testified that cutting the device is merely “standard operating procedure”
since “[t]hey come in standard sizes.” The fact that he cut the device
therefore does not create a genuine dispute of material fact as to whether he
read the instructions for the Durepair product.
       For these reasons, we affirm the district court’s decision to grant the
defendants’ motions for summary judgment.

                                          7