On May 21, 2013, in Smith v. St. Jude Medical, Inc., the California Court of Appeal affirmed the grant of summary judgment in favor of defendants St. Jude Medical, Inc. and Jeremy Kosel (“Defendants”), holding that a supplier of a pacemaker does not owe a duty of care to a patient regarding the acts or omissions that allegedly caused the patient’s death.
Plaintiffs were the five children and mother of the patient-decedent, Patricia Amonoo. Amonoo died after an implanted pacemaker perforated her heart’s right atrium and ascending aorta during cardiac surgery. Dr. La Viola of Permanente Medical Group (Kaiser) was responsible for implanting the cardiac pacemaker in Amonoo and for monitoring her recovery post-surgery. Defendants merely supplied and sold the pacemaker to Kaiser. Although defendant Kosel was present during the cardiac surgery, his role was limited to operating the pacing system analyzer.
In affirming the grant of summary judgment, the Court relied on the fact that Kosel’s role in the surgery was limited. Particularly, the Court emphasized two reasons for which summary judgment was properly granted: (1) Kosel did not instruct or direct Dr. La Viola on how or where to implant the leads, and (2) Kosel did not undertake a duty to monitor the patient.
The Court’s decision is in line with two cases that both address the scope of a medical supplier’s and/or manufacturer’s duty to a patient: Artiglio v. Corning Inc. (1998) 18 Cal.4th 604, and Kennedy v. Medtronic (Ill. App. 2006) 851 N.E.2d 778. Kennedy relied on the concept that an individual’s “limited role” in connection with a procedure does not “entail [the individual’s] voluntarily assuming a duty.” The Artiglio court was concerned with whether a triable issue of fact existed concerning the scope of a supplier/manufacturer’s undertaking. The Smith court found that, as in Artiglio, the evidence unequivocally established that defendant Kosel did not undertake a duty to monitor Amonoo. Defendants could therefore not be liable.
This document is intended to provide you with information about product liability law related developments. The contents of this document are not intended to provide specific legal advice. This communication may be considered advertising in some jurisdictions.