Tanuz v. Carlberg

Tanuz (plaintiff) sued her oral surgeon, Carlberg (defendant) for medical malpractice and strict products liability for injuries that Tanuz suffered after Carlberg surgically inserted an implant device into Tanuz’s temporomandibular joints that was later discovered to be defective. Tanuz did not allege Carlberg acted negligently when he initially implanted or later removed the implanted device but that he breached his duty to warn her of the dangers the implant posed. Tanuz alleged Carlberg’s duty to warn her arose when Carlberg’s patients experienced issues with the device and when there was a growing awareness in the medical community about those issues, both of which occurred before any official warnings from the device manufacturer were issued. At the time Carlberg implanted the device, which was September 1983, the device had about a 93-97 percent success rate, and Tanuz did not experience any of the complications discussed at her informed-consent meeting. It was not until an April 1984 visit that Tanus complained of pain and Carlberg recommended continued follow-up care with another doctor to have her splint removed. Tanuz did not see the other doctor or continue her follow-up treatment with Carlberg. When the implant manufacturer issued its first product warning in 1990, Carlberg sent the alert to all his patients who had the implants, and in 1991, when the implant was recalled, his office also sent recall notices to all his patients. Carlberg assumed Tanuz received both notices because they were not returned, and she had not submitted a change-of-address with his office. In October 1993, Tanuz contacted Carlberg’s office after viewing a television show that discussed problems with her implant, and Carlberg removed her implants in February 1994. Carlberg had stopped using the device two years after he implanted Tanuz’s device and did not contact former patients who had not presented with problems within two years of implantation. Evidence was also presented that showed it was not until the safety alerts were issued that the cause of the implant’s failure—a Teflon-based material used during manufacture—rendered them defective. The trial court dismissed Tanuz’s action after finding she failed to meet her burden of proof that Carlberg breached his duty of care.