Heroth et al v. Johnson & Johnson Services, Inc. et al

Filing 92

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER: The Court GRANTS Defendants' 30 Motion for Summary Judgment on the Claims Asserted by Claudia Heroth for Lack of Causation. (Ordered by Judge Ed Kinkeade on 9/18/2017) (axm)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
DALLAS DIVISION

MDL Docket No.

IN RE: DEPUY ORTHOPAEDICS,
INC.
PINNACLE HIP IMPLANT
PRODUCTS
LIABILITY
LITIGATION
This Order Relates to:
Heroth – 3:12-cv-04647-K

3:11-MD-2244-K

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment on the Claims Asserted by Claudia
Heroth for Lack of Causation [Heroth Doc. 30] is before the Court. After careful
consideration of the parties’ briefing and the applicable law, and for the reasons stated
below, the Court GRANTS Defendants’ Motion.
I.

Factual and Procedural Background

Ms. Heroth asserts claims against Depuy, as well as Depuy Products, Inc., Depuy
Synthes, Inc., Johnson & Johnson, Johnson & Johnson Services, Inc., and Johnson &
Johnson International (collectively, the “Defendants”) related to the design,
development, manufacture, and distribution of the Pinnacle Device. The Pinnacle
Device is used to replace diseased hip joints and was intended to provide pain-free
natural motion over a longer period of time than other hip-replacement devices.
-1-

Defendants argue that summary judgment is proper on all of Plaintiff Claudia
Heroth’s claims because the only expert evidence adduced by Ms. Heroth forecloses a
finding of causation. Medical causation is an essential element of all of Ms. Heroth’s
claim.
II.

Summary Judgment Standard

This Court shall grant summary judgment if the movant shows that there is no
genuine issue as to any material fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter
of law. Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(a). An issue as to a material fact is genuine if a reasonable
jury could return a verdict for the nonmoving party. Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477
U.S. 242, 248 (1986). The Court considers all evidence in the light most favorable to
the party resisting the motion. Trevino v. Celanese Corp., 701 F.2d 397, 407 (5th Cir.
1983).
III.

Analysis

Defendants support their argument by pointing to the testimony of Drs. Albert
Burstein and Jonathan Gainor. Dr. Albert Burstein, a biomechanical engineer,
disclaimed a causal relationship, concluding that “it is not likely that the symptoms
leading to [Ms. Heroth’s] revision surgery can be attributable to the presence of a metal
on metal bearing.” (Rep. of Albert H. Burstein, Ph.D. (“Burstein Heroth Rep.”) at 2,
July 11, 2017. Dr. Jonathan Gainor, Ms. Heroth’s revising orthopedic surgeon, testified
that he was unable to draw a causal link between the Pinnacle Ultamet and Ms.

-2-

Heroth’s loosening and pain, which led to her revision surgery. (See, e.g., Dep. of
Jonathan P. Gainor, M.D. (“Gainor Dep.”) 16:13-16, 108:4-6, June 26, 2017.
In response, Plaintiffs argue that Ms. Heroth has a complex medical history that
makes her case unique. Ms. Heroth had mitral valve replacement surgery in 2002, and
had a pacemaker implanted in 2008 due to chronic atrial fibrillation following her heart
valve replacement. (Ex. C: HEROTHC-4311). She was diagnosed with degenerative
disc disease and underwent two lumbar fusion surgeries in 2017 (Ex. C: HEROTH7970-72; 7973-75).
Plaintiffs’ summary judgment evidence does not establish the existence of a
genuine issue of material fact related to causation on Ms. Heroth’s claims. Based on
the parties’ summary judgment evidence, no reasonable jury could conclude that the
defective nature of the Pinnacle Ultamet caused her alleged injuries and resulting
revision surgery.
Accordingly, summary judgment is proper on Ms. Heroth’s claims and the Court

GRANTS Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment on the Claims Asserted
by Claudia Heroth for Lack of Causation.
SO ORDERED.
Signed September 18, 2017.

_____________________________________
ED KINKEADE
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
-3-