Stieglitz v. Stryker Corporation

Filing 39

ORDER granting 26 Motion for Summary Judgment. Signed by Honorable Patrick Michael Duffy on 05/16/2017.(adeh, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA
CHARLESTON DIVISION
Tammy Lynette Stieglitz,

)
)
Plaintiff,
)
)
v.
)
)
Stryker Corporation,
)
)
Defendant.
)
____________________________________)

C.A. No.: 2:15-cv-1680-PMD
ORDER

This medical device products liability matter is before the Court on Defendant Stryker
Corporation’s motion for summary judgment (ECF No. 26). Although Plaintiff Tammy Stieglitz
has had ample opportunity to oppose the motion, she has not filed any response.
Stryker’s motion is well-founded. Under South Carolina law, a plaintiff in a medically
complex products liability case “must establish proximate cause through competent expert
testimony.” Disher v. Synthes (U.S.A.), 371 F. Supp. 2d 764, 772 (D.S.C. 2005). Stieglitz has
not proffered any expert evidence. There being no support in the record for that essential
element of Stieglitz’s claims, see id. at 769, summary judgment is warranted, see Fed. R. Civ. P.
56(e)(3).
Therefore, it is ORDERED that Stryker’s motion for summary judgment is GRANTED.
AND IT IS SO ORDERED.

May 16, 2017
Charleston, South Carolina