This summary was computer-generated without any editorial revision. It is not official, has not been checked for accuracy, and is NOT citable.
Facts
The Plaintiff underwent temporomandibular joint (TMJ) surgery in 1983, during which the Defendant, an oral and maxillofacial surgeon, implanted Vitek-manufactured TMJ implants. The implants were later found to be defective. The Plaintiff alleged that the Defendant failed to warn her of the risks associated with the implants as information about their dangers became known and sought damages for dental malpractice and strict liability (paras 1-5).
Procedural History
- District Court of Santa Fe County: The trial court dismissed the Plaintiff's claims of strict liability and negligence at the close of her case-in-chief, finding no breach of duty by the Defendant and determining that the Plaintiff's own negligence and that of another physician constituted independent intervening causes of her injuries (paras 1, 6).
Parties' Submissions
- Plaintiff-Appellant: Argued that the Defendant should be held strictly liable as a supplier of the defective implants and that he was negligent in failing to warn her of the dangers posed by the implants as information about their risks became available (para 1).
- Defendant-Appellee: Contended that he could not be held strictly liable as a matter of public policy and that he did not breach the standard of care in warning the Plaintiff about the implants. He also argued that the Plaintiff's failure to follow up and another physician's negligence were independent intervening causes of her injuries (paras 6, 8).
Legal Issues
- Whether the Defendant could be held strictly liable for the use of a defective medical implant (para 1).
- Whether the Defendant breached his duty to warn the Plaintiff of the risks associated with the implants as information about their dangers became known (para 1).
Disposition
- The Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court's dismissal of the Plaintiff's claims (para 29).
Reasons
Per Rudy S. Apodaca, Chief Judge (A. Joseph Alarid and Benny E. Flores JJ. concurring):
Strict Liability: The Court held that public policy does not support imposing strict liability on physicians for using defective medical implants. The Court relied on prior case law, including Parker v. St. Vincent Hospital, which found that strict liability should not apply to non-manufacturer distributors of medical products, as it would not advance the policy goals underlying strict liability (paras 9-11).
Negligence: The Court recognized that a physician has a duty to warn patients of risks discovered after a medical procedure. However, it found that substantial evidence supported the trial court's conclusion that the Defendant did not breach this duty. The Defendant reasonably believed the Plaintiff was asymptomatic due to her failure to return for follow-up care, and his efforts to contact her when the risks became known were deemed adequate under the circumstances (paras 12-28).
Independent Intervening Causes: The Court noted that the trial court had found the Plaintiff's failure to seek follow-up care and another physician's negligence to be independent intervening causes of her injuries. However, it did not address this issue in detail, as it was unnecessary given the findings on strict liability and negligence (para 29).