Haugh

Haugh v. Depuy-Motech, Inc.

Good Law
14 F. App'x 883
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth CircuitJuly 20, 2001No. 00-55001; D.C. No. CV-95-08564-WMBCalifornia1,231 words

Opinion

Lead Opinion

MEMORANDUM

On March 22, 1991, Dr. McKinley performed a surgery on Carlton Haugh that involved the implant of a pedicle screw device known as the MOSS device. The MOSS device was manufactured by Biedermann Motech GmbH (Biedermann) and distributed by Falcon Med., Inc. (Falcon). Following implantation, Mr. Haugh developed severe pain in his low back and extremities and numbness in his left foot. Mr. Haugh underwent surgery to remove the MOSS device on April 28, 1994. On July 22, 1998, Carlton and Dena Haugh (the Haughs) filed their Second Amended Complaint naming Biedermann and Falcon as defendants and alleging causes of action for strict liability, negligence, breach of warranty, fraud, and intentional or negligent infliction of emotional distress. The Haughs appeal the district court’s summary judgment in favor of Biedermann and Falcon. We affirm the district court’s judgment and hold that the Haughs’ claims are barred by the statute of limitations.

Under California law, personal injury actions resulting from products liability claims must be filed within one year of the accrual of plaintiffs claim. See Cal.Civ.Proc.Code § 340(3). The cause of action accrues on the date 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.