Transue

Transue v. Aesthetech Corp.

Good Law
341 F.3d 911
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth CircuitAugust 27, 2003No. 01-35733California4,216 words

Opinion

Lead Opinion

Pregerson, J.

Plaintiff-Appellant Lana Transue (“Transue”) appeals the district court’s decision not to give jury instructions on strict liability in her suit against Defendants-Appellees Bristol-Myers Squibb Company and Medical Engineering Corporation, Inc. alleging a defective breast implant. The district court instead gave instructions on negligence, and the jury found for appel-lee. Transue also appeals three evidentia- *913 ry rulings, claiming it was reversible error for the district court to allow the appellee’s expert to testify about spoliation of evidence, to refuse to allow her two rebuttal witnesses to testify, and to refuse to permit her to cross-examine appellee’s expert witness using learned treatises. Because we find the jury instructions to be reversible error, we do not reach the district court’s evidentiary rulings.

FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

In 1985, Transue received silicone-gel filled breast implants manufactured by Medical Engineering Corporation, Inc., a wholly-owned subsidiary of Bristol-Myers Squibb Company (collectively, “BMS”). The implantation was performed by Dr. Hobart J. White of Tacoma, Washington. Transue alleges that the implants ruptured inside of…

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.