Anguiano

Anguiano v. E.I. Du Pont de Nemours & Co.

Good Law
44 F.3d 806·95 Daily Journal DAR 444·1995 U.S. App. LEXIS 293·95 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 256
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth CircuitJanuary 10, 1995Nos. 93-15401, 93-16559California2,684 words

Opinion

Lead Opinion

Scannlain, J.

We must decide whether a manufacturer has a duty to warn of a danger posed by material which is later used in a medical implant device.

I

Between 1978 and 1986, Consuelo Angui-ano and twenty-one other appellants (collectively “Anguiano”) had temporomandibular (“TMJ”) implants placed in their jaws and subsequently suffered tissue reaction when the implants fragmented. The implants were constructed by Vitek, Inc., a company formed in 1969 by Charles Homsy, a former researcher at DuPont who left to develop medical implants made from a composition called Proplast. Vitek produced Proplast by mixing plytetrafluoroethylene (“PTFE”), a form of Teflon, with carbon fibers and other material; filtering, compressing, and rolling the mixture into a cake; then heating, drying, leaching, and redrying the cake. After this process, PTFE constituted about 90% of Proplast.

*809 Vitek purchased the PTFE from DuPont. Because Vitek planned to use PTFE for medical purposes, DuPont required Homsy to sign a letter stating that Vitek assumed full responsibility for any consequences resulting from its use of PTFE. In the letter, DuPont informed Vitek that DuPont had not conducted tests on PTFE’s…

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.