No alternative, feasible design for the 3DMax used as reason for denying judgement
I don’t want to turn this excellent and informative forum in to a lawsuit site. But I found a fascinating comment in a recent judgment in favor of Bard that, I think, shows that the device makers have very persuasive reasons to avoid developing better products. If they design a better product the better design can be used against them to show that their previous design was defective. It’s mind-boggling, if you sit and ponder it.
I think that change can only be driven by outside new aggressive medical device companies, with no significant past in the industry. The big device makers can’t justify, risk-wise, developing better products. They are financial businesses, not really medical organizations.
The absurdity of the situation almost hurts. The device makers have the means to develop better products but if they do they might destroy themselves. This is a very recent article, March 20, 2018. There is more worth reading in it. Fascinating.
“In the instant case, none of the experts specifically opined that 3DMax is defective and that this defective design caused the medical complications complained of by the plaintiff. Instead, plaintiff’s three experts gave general opinions about the various medical risks of the product that can cause complications. This is not enough to overcome the summary judgement standard,” the three-judge appellate panel wrote. “In addition, no expert presented an alternative, feasible design for the 3DMax. As previously stated, this is one of the determining factors in a defective design case.”
Log in to reply.