Hamer v. LivaNova Deutschland GmbH
United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit
994 F.3d 173 (2021)
- Written by Abby Roughton, JD
Facts
In 2017, Kyle Hamer (plaintiff) developed an infection after undergoing a surgical procedure that had been performed using a 3T Heater-Cooler System manufactured by LivaNova Deutschland GmbH (LivaNova) (defendant). The hospital had experienced an outbreak of non-tuberculosis mycobacterium (NTM) infections in other patients who had undergone surgeries involving the 3T system. Doctors thus suspected that Hamer had an NTM infection and treated Hamer accordingly, even though Hamer’s bacterial cultures never tested positive for NTM. Hamer allegedly suffered lasting injuries from the infection. Hamer sued LivaNova in federal court in Louisiana, asserting that LivaNova had violated the Louisiana Products Liability Act (LPLA) because the 3T system was defectively designed. A judicial panel on multidistrict litigation (JPML) transferred Hamer’s case to a multidistrict litigation (MDL) in federal court in Pennsylvania with other cases alleging injuries from NTM infections caused by the 3T system. The Pennsylvania court entered a case-management order requiring each plaintiff to show a positive bacterial culture proving that the plaintiff had suffered a postsurgical NTM infection. Hamer could not comply with the order because he lacked a positive bacterial culture. The court thus dismissed Hamer’s claims with prejudice and denied Hamer’s motion to remand the action to the Louisiana court without considering Hamer’s argument that his complaint stated a prima facie claim under the LPLA. Hamer appealed.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Roth, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 815,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,300 briefs, keyed to 988 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.