O'Shea v. Zimmer Biomet Holdings, Inc.
United States District Court for the Northern District of Georgia
342 F. Supp.3d 1354 (2018)
Patrick O’Shea (plaintiff) had chronic pain in his knee. O’Shea’s left leg was slightly shorter than his right, his femur bowed outward and forward, he walked with a gait from a gunshot wound, and he was obese. He had knee-replacement surgery using an implant manufactured by Zimmer Biomet Holdings, Inc. (Biomet) (defendant). Seven years later, part of the implant broke. When O’Shea’s surgeon replaced the broken part, he discarded the original. However, the surgeon said he had never seen an implant break like O’Shea’s, it did not perform as expected, and neither O’Shea’s weight nor leg deformity caused the break. When O’Shea sued Biomet alleging that the implant was defectively manufactured, he did not hire an expert with special expertise on his implant to testify. However, an internal Biomet complaint-handling form showed that a Biomet employee checked “yes” in response to whether available information suggested that the implant failed to perform as intended. The employee added an explanation that the part broke while implanted and said the part was not designed to break under normal loads and conditions. The form also asked if other conditions contributed to the failure, and the employee checked “no.” The employee did not check “no information” or “N/A” instead. The employee also noted that O’Shea had a leg deformity that had been corrected by cutting part of the bone. Biomet requesting summary judgment denying the manufacturing-defect claim, arguing that under Georgia law, O’Shea could not prevail without expert testimony establishing that a manufacturing defect likely caused the failure.
Rule of Law
Holding and Reasoning (Brown, J.)
What to do next…
Unlock this case brief with a free (no-commitment) trial membership of Quimbee.
You’ll be in good company: Quimbee is one of the most widely used and trusted sites for law students, serving more than 726,000 law students since 2011. Some law schools—such as Yale, Berkeley, and Northwestern—even subscribe directly to Quimbee for all their law students.Unlock this case briefRead our student testimonials
Learn more about Quimbee’s unique (and proven) approach to achieving great grades at law school.
Quimbee is a company hell-bent on one thing: helping you get an “A” in every course you take in law school, so you can graduate at the top of your class and get a high-paying law job. We’re not just a study aid for law students; we’re the study aid for law students.Learn about our approachRead more about Quimbee
Here's why 726,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 45,700 briefs, keyed to 983 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.