Monroe

Monroe v. Zimmer U.S. Inc.

Good Law
766 F. Supp. 2d 1012·2011 WL 534037·2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 15102
United States District Court, Eastern District of CaliforniaFebruary 14, 2011CIV. S-08-2944 FCD/EFBCalifornia12,843 words

Opinion

Opinion

Damrell, J.

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

This matter is before the court on defendants Zimmer US, Inc. and Zimmer Inc.’s (“defendants”) motion for summary judgment pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56 and defendants’ motion to exclude the testimony of Martin T. Wells (“Wells”) pursuant to Federal Rule of Evidence 702. For the reasons set forth below, defendants’ motion for summary judgment is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part and defendants’ motion to exclude Wells’ testimony is DENIED.

BACKGROUND

Plaintiff Sara Monroe (“plaintiff’) alleges that use of a Zimmer Ambulatory Pump (“ZAP”) caused her to lose cartilage in her shoulder, resulting in unbearable pain and suffering. (Complaint, filed Oct. 16, 2008.) Plaintiff raises claims under California law for: (1) general negligence; (2) negligent products liability; and (3) strict products liability. As to the claim of general negligence, plaintiff alleges that defendants negligently designed, manufactured, and distributed a defective ZAP and negligently failed to warn doctors and patients that use of the ZAP in shoulder joints was unsafe.

1. Overview

A. Anatomy of the Shoulder and the Glenohumeral Joint

The ball-and-socket joint of the…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.