Ralston v. Smith & Nephew Richards, Inc.
United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit
275 F. 3d 965 (2001)
- Written by Joe Cox, JD
Facts
Karen Ralston (plaintiff) had cancer in her left leg in 1986, and the cancer treatment significantly reduced the strength of that leg. In April 1996, Ralston tripped and suffered multiple fractures in her lower left femur, extending to the knee area. Dr. William Bohn implanted a multihole nail manufactured by Smith & Nephew Richards, Inc. (Smith & Nephew) (defendant) in Ralston’s broken leg. In October 1996, Ralston twisted her leg at work, causing pain and weakness. Examination revealed that the multihole nail had broken, and another fracture was found in the leg. Dr. Bohn removed the multihole nail and replaced it with a longer titanium intramedullary nail extending into Ralston’s hip. Ralston continued to have problems. Dr. Bohn performed another bone graft and subsequently referred Ralston to Dr. Kimberly Templeton, an orthopedic surgeon who performed a total knee replacement, removing the titanium nail and implanting a hinged piece of metal. In 1998, Ralston sued Smith & Nephew on multiple product-liability claims, including design and manufacturing defects, Food and Drug Administration violations, and negligence, which included a failure to warn. Ralston argued that Smith & Nephew failed to warn Dr. Bohn that Smith & Nephew had a five-hole nail, which was more durable and would have been better for Ralston’s care. At trial, Smith & Nephew filed a motion for summary judgment and a motion to strike Ralston’s lone expert, Dr. Christopher Ramsey. Ralston’s counsel agreed to the motion to strike Dr. Ramsey and indicated that Ralston would abandon all claims but the failure to warn and substitute Dr. Templeton as Ralston’s expert. Ultimately, the trial court ruled for Smith & Nephew and excluded testimony from Dr. Templeton on the grounds that Templeton was unqualified to render an expert opinion, and any such opinions were not reliable pursuant to the Daubert standard. Although Dr. Templeton was an orthopedic surgeon and prepared to testify about bone healing, Templeton did not have any specific knowledge about intramedullary nailing, had not published any papers on that subject, and had not done any research in that specific area. Ralston appealed the exclusion of Dr. Templeton, for which the standard of review was abuse of discretion. Ralston argued that Dr. Templeton’s knowledge as an orthopedic surgeon gave Templeton sufficient general knowledge to testify on orthopedic and surgical principles and concepts.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Garth, J)
What to do next…
Here's why 797,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,200 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.