Primiano

I. Facts

Marylou Primiano has suffered a miserable ordeal since she had elbow surgery. The question raised by her litigation2 is 1 Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharm., Inc., 509 U.S. 579 (1993). 2 The complaint also names Mr. Primiano as a plaintiff, for his deriva- tive claim for loss of consortium etc., and names Stryker Corporation as 6286 PRIMIANO v. HOWMEDICA OSTEONICS whether her ordeal resulted from a defective product, the arti- ficial elbow Howmedica Osteonics Corporation manufac- tured. The district court granted summary judgment against her and dismissed her case, but that result could not have occurred had her medical expert’s testimony been considered. His testimony would have established a genuine issue of material fact, because he thought the plastic bearing between the metal parts of the artificial elbow wore out so quickly that it must have been defective. The district court ruled that his testimony was inadmissible, leaving Primiano with inade- quate evidence to establish a genuine issue of fact. The ques- tion before us is whether excluding Primiano’s expert’s testimony was an abuse of discretion.

Ms. Primiano, an active 36-year-old woman, fell in her…