Harshey v. Advanced Bionics Corp.
United States District Court for the Southern District of Indiana
No. 1:09-cv-905-DFH-TAB, 2009 WL 3617756 (2009)

- Written by Sarah Holley, JD
Facts
Advanced Bionics Corp. (defendant) manufactures pulse generators. Kenneth A. Harshey (plaintiff) had one of these pulse generators surgically implanted. Harshey brought suit against Bionics Corp. after the device malfunctioned and left Harshey with severe and permanent injuries. Harshey’s wife and son each joined as plaintiffs to the case, claiming loss of consortium and negligent infliction of emotion distress, respectively. The case was originally filed in state court, and Bionics Corp. removed the case to federal court by invoking diversity jurisdiction. All three plaintiffs filed a motion to remand the case to state court for failure to show that the jurisdictional amount was satisfied. Plaintiffs submitted post-removal stipulations stating that none of them individually sought, demanded, or would accept any recovery in excess of $75,000. To meet its burden of establishing that federal jurisdiction was proper, Bionics Corp. relied on the statement of its counsel that its experience with personal-injury litigation and the general descriptions of the Harsheys’ alleged injuries showed that the amount-in-controversy requirement was satisfied.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Hamilton, C.J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 832,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,500 briefs, keyed to 994 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.