[ad_1]
U.S. District Court
Listen to this articleWhere a defendant has filed a motion for summary judgment on a Michigan plaintiff’s claim that the defendant’s alleged failure to warn her breast-cancer surgeon about the risks associated with a radiographic marking device, the motion should be allowed as to a failure-to-warn claim under Michigan law.
“Before the Court is Defendant Hologic’s motion for summary judgment on Plaintiff Beth Deuel’s claim that Hologic’s alleged failure to warn her breast-cancer surgeon about the risks associated with BioZorb, a radiographic marking device, caused her to suffer a variety of injuries. …
“Deuel’s proof fails on causation. She contends that summary judgment should be denied by pointing to contradictory evidence in the record about whether Dr. [Stephen] Cahill was already aware of the risks of the BioZorb at the time he prescribed it. … This testimony alone, however, cannot defeat summary judgment, as Dr. Cahill’s awareness of the risks or lack thereof at the time he implanted the device into Deuel says nothing about the critical question on the issue of causation: that is, what Dr. Cahill would have done if he had known of those risks. Moreover, Deuel has cited no authority under Michigan law for why the lack of such knowledge, standing alone, provides a basis to deny summary judgment here. …”
In Re BioZorb Device Products Liability Litigation (Lawyers Weekly No. 02-047-25) (11 pages) (Burroughs, J.) (Civil Action No. 1:22-cv-11895-ADB) (Feb. 3, 2025).
[ad_2]
Source link