Products Liability Law Reporter

A federal district court denied summary judgment for the defense in a defective breast implant case.

Lalitha Jacob was implanted with Mentor 600-cc MemoryGel breast implants. Years later, she underwent a procedure to remove the implants. She brought a products liability suit against Mentor Worldwide, LLC, which successfully moved to dismiss. The Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals reversed on a preemption issue, and the defendant moved for summary judgment.

Denying the motion, the district court rejected the defense argument that it was entitled to summary judgment because the plaintiff had offered no evidence establishing a state law claim that is not preempted by the Medical Device Amendments of 1976 (MDA). The MDA impliedly preempts claims seeking to privately enforce a duty owed to the FDA, the court said, noting that a plaintiff may still bring suit where conduct violated a federal requirement and a device suffered from a defect that caused injury. The court found that here, the plaintiff has offered evidence from which a reasonable jury could conclude she has proved her case. This includes evidence from her treating physicians and an expert who opined on the failure of the plaintiff’s implants.

The court concluded that there was a conflict between the plaintiff and defense experts that created a genuine issue of material fact as to whether the plaintiff’s implants were defective. The court added that the defendant, which unsuccessfully asserted a Daubert challenge, may reassert those challenges after voir dire at trial.

Citation: Jacob v. Mentor Worldwide, LLC, 2024 WL 1118811 (M.D. Fla. Mar. 14, 2024).

Plaintiff counsel: Lalitha Jacob, pro se.