Not a Lexis+ subscriber? Try it out for free.

Experience a New Era in Legal Research with Free Access to Lexis+

Crisp v. Stryker Corp.

United States District Court for the Northern District of Ohio, Eastern Division

May 21, 2010, Decided; May 21, 2010, Filed

CASE NO. 5:09-cv-02212

Opinion

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER

This matter is before the Court on the motion of Defendant Stryker Corporation and Stryker Sales Corporation (collectively, "Stryker") for the partial dismissal of Plaintiff Allen Crisp's second amended complaint pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6). 1 (Doc. No. 187.) For the reasons that follow, Stryker's motion for partial dismissal is GRANTED, however, within fourteen (14) days of the date of this order, Crisp may re-plead his complaint to state claims under the Ohio Products Liability Act.

I. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

The facts of this case are taken from Crisp's second amended complaint and opposition and are assumed true for the purpose of this motion to dismiss. Crisp is an Ohio resident. The Stryker defendants are Michigan corporations with their principal places  [*4] of business in Kalamazoo, Michigan. On May 11, 2006, Crisp underwent orthopedic surgery on his left shoulder. The surgeon who performed the surgery implanted a Stryker-branded "pain pump" 2 into Crisp's shoulder during the procedure. Crisp alleges the Stryker pain pump injected pain relief medication, specifically bupivacaine, manufactured by AstraZeneca, into his shoulder, and "as a result of using Defendants' products, [he] has severe loss of cartilage in his left shoulder, resulting in loss of range of motion, loss of functional use of his arm, and/or severe and permanent pain and suffering as well as other injuries." (SAC at P 4.) Crisp's theory of the case, as asserted in his opposition, is that,

[g]iven the wealth of scientific literature available, the Defendants knew or should have known of the dangers of the pain pumps when used in connection with pain pump anesthetics and implanted into a patient's shoulder following shoulder surgery, but nonetheless marketed and/or sold the pain pumps and/or pain pump medications without adequate warnings concerning these risks, including the high risk of developing glenohumeral chondrolysis.

(Plaintiff's opposition to Stryker's motion for  [*5] partial dismissal, Doc. No. 198, hereinafter "Opp." at p. 3.)

Read The Full CaseNot a Lexis Advance subscriber? Try it out for free.

Full case includes Shepard's, Headnotes, Legal Analytics from Lex Machina, and more.

2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 51390 *; 2010 WL 2076796

ALLEN CRISP, Plaintiff, v. STRYKER CORPORATION, et al., Defendants.

Prior History: Frobes v. Stryker Corp., 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 102034 (E.D.N.Y., July 29, 2009)

CORE TERMS

pain, pump, manufacturer, re-plead, shoulder, partial