Products liability – New York law – Surgical implant

Listen to this article

Where the defendant manufacturer of a surgical implant has moved for summary judgment on a claim asserted by a plaintiff who underwent eye surgery, that motion should be allowed under applicable New York law, as the plaintiff has identified no evidence that creates a triable issue on the question of whether the implant suffered from a defect that was knowable at the time of her surgery in 1986.

“Nancy Daley has sued two defendants, alleging claims arising from an eye surgery she underwent in 1986. Schepens Eye Research Institute, Inc. (‘SERI’), seeks summary judgment on the sole claim remaining against it. …

“SERI, a charitable Massachusetts corporation, designed a ‘scleral buckling device’ — a surgical implant used to treat retinal detachment — that was ultimately sold under the name MIRAgel. …

“… Without evidence which could support an inference that MIRAgel’s alleged defect was knowable or scientifically discoverable before Daley’s 1986 surgery — and Daley concedes that she lacks such evidence, … —SERI’s uncontradicted evidence leaves no genuine dispute about whether MIRAgel was defectively designed under New York law. …

“In sum, even drawing all reasonable inferences in her favor, Daley has identified no evidence that creates a triable issue on the question of whether MIRAgel suffered from a defect that was knowable at the time of her surgery. SERI, on the other hand, has presented what amounts to uncontested evidence that its product was state-of-the-art during the relevant time. In these circumstances, SERI is entitled to judgment as a matter of New York law. …

“Because the record contains no evidence that would permit a factfinder to conclude, in light of the available technology at the relevant time, that SERI defectively designed MIRAgel, SERI’s Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. No. 165) is allowed. Judgment will enter in favor of SERI on the remaining claims against it (Counts I, II, and III).”

Daley v. Mira, Inc., et al. (Lawyers Weekly No. 02-492-23) (10 pages) (Sorokin, J.) (Civil No. 18-10353-LTS) (Oct. 30, 2023).

Click here to read the full text of the opinion.