A Maryland federal judge has denied a hip implant patient’s bid for a new trial against Smith & Nephew Inc. on allegations that she was injured by a defective hip implant, finding that none of her objections to evidentiary and expert witness rulings warrant disturbing the jury’s findings.
U.S. District Judge Catherine C. Blake rejected each of the seven arguments Paula Redick offered in her motion to undo the outcome of the trial, which ran from July 26 to Aug. 13 last year.
Redick’s case is part of a larger multidistrict litigation comprising hundreds of suits from patients who say they were implanted with the company’s Birmingham Hip Resurfacing, or BHR, implants and suffered injuries related to them breaking down and metal entering their bloodstreams.
At the close of trial, the jury found that while the company had made a false or misleading representation, Redick’s surgeon did not justifiably rely on that representation and cleared Smith & Nephew on all counts.
Redick’s motion for a retrial first challenged the trial testimony of the company’s expert, Dr. Michael Mont, saying that some of his opinion testimony had been undisclosed and a “surprise,” and the court had unfairly limited Redick’s cross-examination.
Judge Blake, however, wrote that the testimony Redick objected to — concerning what a reasonable orthopedic surgeon knew or should have known at the time of her 2012 surgery — was not a surprise, as Redick’s council demonstrated they were aware of what Mont would say during deposition.
In addition, the judge wrote that the jury was given an instruction to disregard that portion of Mont’s testimony, and that instruction was enough to remedy any prejudice.
In December, Smith & Nephew asked the court to throw out claims related to pre-2009 implants in the larger MDL, arguing no plaintiffs have shown that the company had information about defects that would affect their use before then. A ruling on that request has not yet been made available.