Stieglitz v. Stryker Corporation

Filing 39

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

Download PDF
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

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.

Why Is My Information Online?