Search

Attributes

This case was last updated from Los Angeles County Superior Courts on 06/03/2019 at 01:26:23 (UTC).

PAMELA CHAVEZ-HUTSON VS WRIGHT MEDICAL GROUP INC ET AL

Case Summary

On 03/10/2016 PAMELA CHAVEZ-HUTSON filed a Personal Injury - Other Product Liability lawsuit against WRIGHT MEDICAL GROUP INC. This case was filed in Los Angeles County Superior Courts, Stanley Mosk Courthouse located in Los Angeles, California. The Judges overseeing this case are MELVIN D. SANDVIG and HOLLY J. FUJIE. The case status is Pending - Other Pending.

Case Details Parties Documents Dockets

 

Case Details

  • Case Number:

    ****3242

  • Filing Date:

    03/10/2016

  • Case Status:

    Pending - Other Pending

  • Case Type:

    Personal Injury - Other Product Liability

  • Court:

    Los Angeles County Superior Courts

  • Courthouse:

    Stanley Mosk Courthouse

  • County, State:

    Los Angeles, California

Judge Details

Presiding Judges

MELVIN D. SANDVIG

HOLLY J. FUJIE

 

Party Details

Plaintiff and Petitioner

CHAVEZ-HUTSON PAMELA

Defendants and Respondents

VELAZCO FRANK

ZUROWSKI WILLIAM

ADVANCED SERGICAL DEVICES INC

WRIGHT MEDICAL GROUP INC

WRIGHT MEDICAL TECHNOLOGY INC

DOES 1-100

WRIGHT MEDICAL GROUP INC. A CORPORATION

ADVANCED SURGICAL DEVICES INC.

WRIGHT MEDICAL TECHNOLOGY INC. A

Attorney/Law Firm Details

Plaintiff and Petitioner Attorney

THE VARTAZARIAN LAW FIRM APC

Defendant and Respondent Attorneys

BAGWELL DANIELLE

BURKE SEAN K

RENNER J. ROBERT ESQ.

DUANE MORRIS LLP

 

Court Documents

Request for Judicial Notice

7/27/2018: Request for Judicial Notice

Unknown

7/27/2018: Unknown

Notice of Motion

7/27/2018: Notice of Motion

Motion to Continue

8/20/2018: Motion to Continue

Order

8/20/2018: Order

Notice

8/29/2018: Notice

SUMMONS

3/10/2016: SUMMONS

COMPLAINT FOR: (1) STRICT PRODUCTS LIABILITY; ETC

3/10/2016: COMPLAINT FOR: (1) STRICT PRODUCTS LIABILITY; ETC

PROOF OF SERVICE SUMMONS

5/17/2016: PROOF OF SERVICE SUMMONS

PROOF OF SERVICE SUMMONS

5/17/2016: PROOF OF SERVICE SUMMONS

PROOF OF SERVICE SUMMONS

3/8/2017: PROOF OF SERVICE SUMMONS

SPECIAL APPEARANCE NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO QUASH SERVICE OF SUMMONS BY SPECIALLY APPEARING DEFENDANT WRIGHT MEDICAL GROUP, INC.

8/23/2017: SPECIAL APPEARANCE NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO QUASH SERVICE OF SUMMONS BY SPECIALLY APPEARING DEFENDANT WRIGHT MEDICAL GROUP, INC.

FRANK VELAZCO'S ANSWER TO PLAINTIFF'S COMPLAINT DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL

8/23/2017: FRANK VELAZCO'S ANSWER TO PLAINTIFF'S COMPLAINT DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL

Minute Order

8/24/2017: Minute Order

NOTICE OF RULING

8/24/2017: NOTICE OF RULING

Minute Order

8/24/2017: Minute Order

Minute Order

9/20/2017: Minute Order

MOTION TO TRANSFER COMPLICATED PERSONAL INJURY CASE TO INDEPENDENT CALENDAR COURT AND ORDER

9/20/2017: MOTION TO TRANSFER COMPLICATED PERSONAL INJURY CASE TO INDEPENDENT CALENDAR COURT AND ORDER

28 More Documents Available

 

Docket Entries

  • 05/28/2019
  • at 08:30 AM in Department F47, Melvin D. Sandvig, Presiding; Mandatory Settlement Conference (MSC) - Not Held - Continued - Stipulation

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 02/11/2019
  • Stipulation and Order (STIPULATION AND PROPOSED ORDER TO CONTINUE TRIAL AND RELATED DEADLINES; MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF STIPULATION); Filed by Wright Medical Group, Inc (Defendant); WRIGHT MEDICAL GROUP, INC. a Corporation (Defendant); Wright Medical Technology, Inc (Defendant) et al.

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 01/21/2019
  • at 3:00 PM in Department F47, Melvin D. Sandvig, Presiding; (Trial - Continued) - Not Held - Clerical Error

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 01/11/2019
  • at 3:00 PM in Department F47, Melvin D. Sandvig, Presiding; (Final Status Conference - Cont'd) - Not Held - Continued - Court's Motion

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 12/19/2018
  • Application to be Admitted Pro Hac Vice (Renewal); Filed by Danielle Bagwell (Attorney); Wright Medical Group, Inc (Defendant); WRIGHT MEDICAL GROUP, INC. a Corporation (Defendant) et al.

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 12/19/2018
  • Notice of Payment of Annual Renewal Fee to Maintain Pro Hac Vice Status of Sean Burke; Filed by Sean K Burke (Attorney); Wright Medical Group, Inc (Defendant); WRIGHT MEDICAL GROUP, INC. a Corporation (Defendant) et al.

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 11/01/2018
  • at 3:00 PM in Department F47, Melvin D. Sandvig, Presiding; Mandatory Settlement Conference (MSC) - Not Held - Continued - Court's Motion

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 08/29/2018
  • Notice Notice of Withdrawal

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 08/23/2018
  • Notice; Filed by WRIGHT MEDICAL GROUP, INC. a Corporation (Defendant); WRIGHT MEDICAL TECHNOLOGY, INC. a (Defendant); ADVANCED SURGICAL DEVICES, INC. (Defendant) et al.

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 08/20/2018
  • at 08:32 AM in Department F47; Hearing on Motion to Quash ((Court Makes Order)) -

    Read MoreRead Less
135 More Docket Entries
  • 05/17/2016
  • Proof-Service/Summons; Filed by Plaintiff/Petitioner

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/17/2016
  • Proof-Service/Summons; Filed by Plaintiff/Petitioner

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/10/2016
  • Proof-Service/Summons

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/10/2016
  • Proof-Service/Summons; Filed by Attorney for Plaintiff/Petitioner

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/10/2016
  • PROOF OF SERVICE SUMMONS

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/10/2016
  • SUMMONS

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/10/2016
  • Complaint; Filed by PAMELA CHAVEZ-HUTSON (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/10/2016
  • COMPLAINT FOR: (1) STRICT PRODUCTS LIABILITY; ETC

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/10/2016
  • Complaint; Filed by PAMELA CHAVEZ-HUTSON (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/10/2016
  • Complaint

    Read MoreRead Less

Tentative Rulings

Case Number: BC613242    Hearing Date: October 21, 2020    Dept: F47

Dept. F-47

Date: 10/21/20

Case #BC613242

MOTION SUMMARY JUDGMENT/SUMMARY ADJUDICATION

Motion filed on 11/8/19.

MOVING PARTY: Defendants Wright Medical Technology, Inc., Advanced Surgical Devices, Inc., William Zurowski and Frank Velazco

RESPONDING PARTY: Plaintiff Pamela Chavez-Hutson

NOTICE: ok

RELIEF REQUESTED: An order granting summary judgment in favor of Defendants Wright Medical Technology, Inc., Advanced Surgical Devices, Inc., William Zurowski and Frank Velazco and against Plaintiff. Alternatively, Defendants request summary adjudication in their favor and against Plaintiff on Plaintiff’s 1st, 2nd and 3rd causes of action.

RULING: The motion is granted as set forth below.

The parties are reminded to review the 5/3/19 First Amended General Order Re Mandatory Electronic Filing for Civil. When e-filing documents, parties must comply with the “TECHNICAL REQUIREMENTS” which are set forth at page 4, line 4 through page 5, line 12 of the Court’s 5/3/19 First Amended General Order Re Mandatory Electronic Filing for Civil. Failure to comply with these requirements in the future may result in papers being rejected, matters being placed off calendar, matters being continued so documents can be resubmitted in compliance with these requirements, documents not being considered and/or the imposition of sanctions. (See also 10/1/20 Notice to Attorneys).

This is a personal injury action wherein Plaintiff makes claims against Defendants Wright Medical Technology, Inc., Advanced Surgical Devices, Inc., William Zurowski and Frank Velazco (Defendants) related to femoral hip implant components she received in both hips on 8/17/12. Plaintiff alleges that femoral hip components in each hip, identified as a PROFEMUR® cobalt-chromium (CoCr) neck coupled with a PROFEMUR® Z stem manufactured by Wright Medical and distributed by the other Defendants, failed and resulted in the dissemination of metallic debris into the tissues surrounding the hip implants. (Compl. ¶¶11-12). Plaintiff alleges that she underwent revision surgeries on 3/11/14 for her right hip and 9/16/14 for her left hip to remove and replace the implants. (Compl. ¶13). On 3/10/16, Plaintiff filed the instant action for: (1) Strict Products Liability; (2) Negligence and (3) Breach of Warranty.

Defendants now seek an order granting summary judgment in their favor and against Plaintiff on the ground that all of Plaintiff’s claims are time-barred under CCP 335.1. Alternatively, Defendants seek summary adjudication in their favor and against Plaintiff on: (1) the 1st cause of Action for Strict Liability based on design defect, (2) the 1st cause of action for Strict Liability based on failure to warn, (3) the 2nd cause of action for Negligent based on failure to warn,

(4) the 1st cause of action for Strict Liability based on manufacturing defect and (5) the 3rd cause of action for Breach of Warranty.

Plaintiff does not oppose Defendants’ request to summarily adjudicate the strict liability and breach of warranty causes of action. Plaintiff opposes the motion as to the negligent design defect and negligent manufacturing defect claims. (See Opp. p.1:27-p.2:7). As such, Defendants are entitled to summary adjudication in their favor as to the 1st cause of action for Strict Liability and 3rd cause of action for Breach of Warranty and the only issue to be decided by this motion is whether Plaintiff’s 2nd cause of action for Negligence is barred by the applicable statute of limitations.

A two year statute of limitations applies to personal injury claims based on defective products regardless of the legal theory sued upon. See Erickson (C.D. Cal. 2011) 846 F.Supp.2d 1085, 1094; Becker (1975) 52 CA3d 794, 802; Rivas (2002) 98 CA4th 218, 229-230. The “discovery rule” provides that the statute of limitations begins to run when the plaintiff suspects or should suspect that his/her injury was caused by wrongdoing. See Jolly (1988) 44 C3d 1103, 1110-1111, 1115; Nguyen (2014) 229 CA4th 1522, 1552; Garabet (2007) 151 CA4th 1538, 1550; Knowles (2004) 118 CA4th 1290, 1298, 1300; Norgart (1999) 21 C4th 383, 397-398. Suspicion of one or more of the elements of a cause of action (i.e., wrongdoing, causation, harm) along with knowledge of any remaining elements, will trigger the running of the statute of limitations. Fox (2005) 35 C4th 797, 807.

Plaintiff testified that in November 2013, and by no later than January 2014, the defects in the subject hip implants were causing pain in both of her hips. (See Separate Statement (SS) 14, 16-21). Plaintiff underwent her first hip revision surgery on 3/11/14. (SS 22-23). Plaintiff did not file this action until 3/10/16. (SS 25). Plaintiff’s own testimony establishes that she suspected wrongdoing based on the hip implants as early as November 2013 which caused her to retain legal counsel in January 2014. (SS 17-19).

Plaintiff’s claim that her injury did not occur until she had the hip implants removed on 3/11/14, and, therefore, the statute of limitations did not begin to run until that date is without merit. In California, an injury occurs when the plaintiff suffers any appreciable and actual harm, regardless of uncertainty of amount. See Pooshs (2011) 51 C4th 788, 797; Spellis (1988) 200 CA3d 1075, 1080-1081; Hills (1984) 152 CA3d 753, 764-765; Miller (1991) 1 CA4th 1611, 1624. With regard to medical devices, harm or injury occurs at the time the plaintiff experiences symptoms, such as pain, related to the implanted device, not when the device is later removed. See Jaeger 2016 WL 520985 at *12. Here, Plaintiff first experienced pain related to the hip implant devices in December 2012 and suspected the devices were the cause of the pain in November 2013, finally retaining an attorney in January 2014. (See SS 9-13, 16, 18).

The discovery rule only tolled the statute of limitations until Plaintiff suspected or should have suspected her injuries/pain were caused by the hip implant devices. See Henderson (9th Cir. 2008) 285 Fed.Appx. 370. Here, Plaintiff testified that she suspected the implants were the cause of her pain as early as November 2013. (SS 17). Even if the statute of limitations is extended to when Plaintiff retained counsel regarding the implants, in January 2014, this action was filed more than two years later in March of 2016. (SS 19, 25).

Based on the foregoing, the two year statute of limitations began to run, at the latest, in January 2014. As such, to be timely, Plaintiff was required to file this action by January 2016. Again, this action was not filed until 3/10/16. (SS 25).

Plaintiff’s claim that Defendants agreed to toll the statute of limitations is also without merit. The tolling agreement relied on by Plaintiff only applies to claims arising from injuries allegedly caused by “a metal-on-metal theory of defect” in “CONSERVE®, DYNASTY®, or LINEAGE® metal-on-metal hip implant” components. (See Fulmer Decl., Ex.1 – CONSERVE®, DYNASTY® AND LINEAGE® TOLLING AGREEMENT, p.1, p.2 ¶4). Plaintiff’s claims do not concern CONSERVE®, DYNASTY®, or LINEAGE® metal-on-metal components. (SS 3; Reply Ex.A - Dr. Snibbe Depo p.38:7-p.40:5; Ex.B - Medical Record; Ex.C – Plaintiff Depo p.87:3-21). Additionally, Advanced Surgical Devices, Inc., William Zurowski and Frank Velazco were not parties to the agreement. (Fulmer Decl., Ex.1). Therefore, even if it applied, it would not extend the statute of limitations as to those defendants.

Further, Wright Medical only agreed to toll the statute of limitations for certain cases of which Plaintiff’s case is not one. In 2012, certain centralized proceedings were created for cases claiming injuries caused by alleged defects in certain Wright Medical products which paired a metal acetabular cup with a metal femoral head (referred to as “metal-on-metal”)--specifically the CONSERVE®, LINEAGE®, and DYNASTY® product lines. One of those proceedings was In re: Wright Medical Technology, Inc., Conserve Hip Implant Products Liability Litigation, MDL No. 2329, a federal multi-district litigation venued in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Georgia (“MDL 2329”) and the other was In re: Wright Hip System Cases, Judicial Council Coordination Proceeding No. 4710 (“JCCP 4710”), a coordinated proceeding venued in California Superior Court, Los Angeles Division. Wright Medical agreed with certain plaintiffs’ counsel to toll the statute of limitations for particular cases, as long as the case was ultimately filed in one of these two coordinated proceedings. Plaintiff did not bring her claims in those coordinated proceedings and is not permitted to bring her claims in those coordinated proceedings. If Plaintiff tried to bring her case in the coordinated proceedings, Plaintiff’s case would be kicked out of the coordination, because the products and claims involved are not the type (metal-on-metal) that the tolling agreement applies to. (Ex.1 to Plaintiff’s Opp. ¶11). In fact, Plaintiff incorrectly represented in Supplement 2 to the Tolling Agreement that she received a metal-on-metal CONSERVE® hip system. (Ex. 2 to Plaintiff’s Opp. (stating the device at issue was “WM Conserve®”). When Wright Medical received information setting forth the actual products received by Plaintiff, defense counsel advised that the Agreement was void as to Plaintiff’s claims. (Ex. 4 to Plaintiff’s Opp. (email from counsel for Wright Medical stating “[b]ased on my review of the records accompanying the PFS of Ms. Chavez-Hutson, it is apparent that this claim involves components made by another manufacturer which are not metal-on-metal . . . .[W]e are cancelling the tolling agreement as to Ms. Chavez-Hutson.”).

Based on the foregoing, the negligence claims Plaintiff intends to proceed on are time-barred and Defendants are entitled to summary judgment.

Dept. F-47

Date: 10/21/20

Case #BC613242

MOTION TO FILE UNDER SEAL

Motion filed on 11/8/19.

MOVING PARTY: Defendants Wright Medical Technology, Inc., Advanced Surgical Devices, Inc., William Zurowski and Frank Velazco

RESPONDING PARTY: Plaintiff Pamela Chavez-Hutson

NOTICE: ok

RELIEF REQUESTED: An order, pursuant to CRC 2.550 and 2.551, sealing the following records lodged with the Court conditionally under seal in connection with Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment/Summary Adjudication filed on 11/8/19:

Exhibits A and B to the concurrently filed Declaration of Romtin Parvaresh in support of this Motion ("Parvaresh Declaration"): a true and correct copy of Wright Medical's manufacturing records for the PROFEMURO cobalt-chromium ("CoCr") neck components received by Plaintiff Pamela Chavez-Hutson ("Plaintiff"); and

Exhibits C and D to the Parvaresh Declaration: a true and correct copy of Wright Medical's manufacturing records for the PROFEMUR® Z stem components received by Plaintiff.

RULING: The motion is placed off calendar as moot.

Based on Plaintiff’s concession that she does not oppose Defendants’ request to summarily adjudicate the strict liability and breach of warranty causes of action and only opposes the motion for summary judgment/summary adjudication as to the negligent design defect and negligent manufacturing defect claims, the records Defendants’ seek to have sealed were not necessary to the Court’s ruling on the motion for summary judgment/summary adjudication.  (See Opp. to Motion for Summary Judgment/Summary Adjudication p.1:27-p.2:7; Tentative Ruling on Motion for Summary Judgment/Summary Adjudication).  As such, there is no need to file such records in relation to that motion.

related-case-search

Dig Deeper

Get Deeper Insights on Court Cases


Latest cases where ADVANCED SURGICAL DEVICES INC. is a litigant

Latest cases where WRIGHT MEDICAL GROUP INC. is a litigant

Latest cases where WRIGHT MEDICAL TECHNOLOGY INC. is a litigant