Taylor V. Medtronics Inc. Taylor V. Medtronics Inc.

Taylor V. Medtronics Inc‪.‬

    • 0,99 €
    • 0,99 €

Descrição da editora

Plaintiffs, Richard and Pamela Taylor, filed suit on behalf of their infant daughter, Jessica S. Taylor, alleging that the pacemaker system which had been implanted in Jessica was defective. The complaint named both the manufacturer of the pacemaker, Pacesetters Systems, Inc., and the manufacturer of the lead wires which connected the pacemaker to Jessica's heart, Medtronics, Inc. The complaint alleged that the first pacemaker would not operate properly and therefore had to be replaced within a year of the original implantation. Despite repeated attempts, defendants were unable to schedule a deposition of the plaintiffs' expert witness so the defendants filed a motion with the district court seeking an order to compel discovery. Defendants also requested the imposition of sanctions against plaintiffs' counsel. The court initially declined to grant the motion for sanctions; however, after the plaintiffs' counsel repeatedly failed to comply with the court's orders, the court granted defendants' motion for sanctions and ordered that the affidavit of plaintiffs' expert witness be stricken from the record. The court also granted defendant Pacesetters' motion for summary judgment finding no issue of material fact in the absence of any expert opinion which would support plaintiffs' claims. The court also vacated its previous denial of a summary judgment motion and entered summary judgment in favor of defendant Medtronics. The district court denied plaintiffs' motion to reconsider and plaintiffs appealed to this court. For the following reasons, we find that the district court did not abuse its discretion by imposing sanctions in response to the plaintiffs' counsel's disregard of the district court's discovery orders. Furthermore, we find that the district court properly granted summary judgment in favor of defendants, since there was no genuine issue of material fact and the defendants were entitled to judgment as a matter of law.

GÉNERO
Profissional e técnico
LANÇADO
1988
22 de novembro
IDIOMA
EN
Inglês
PÁGINAS
20
EDITORA
LawApp Publishers
TAMANHO
62,1
KB

Mais livros de United States Court Of Appeals For The Sixth Circuit

In Re Airport Disaster At Metropolitan Airport In Re Airport Disaster At Metropolitan Airport
1985
United States v. Wesley United States v. Wesley
2005
Ross v. Wall Street Systems Ross v. Wall Street Systems
2005
[U] Higgins v. International Union [U] Higgins v. International Union
2005
Motorists Mutual Insurance Company v. Hammond Motorists Mutual Insurance Company v. Hammond
2004
In re Huffman In re Huffman
2004