Causation in personal injury actions, including product liability claims related to drugs and medical devices and toxic tort actions related to exposure to hazardous substances, must be proven within a reasonable degree of medical probability based upon competent expert testimony. That\u2019s typically the plaintiff\u2019s burden of proof. Do the defendants bear the same burden? In Kline v Zimmer, the California Court of Appeal recently held that, in challenging the plaintiff\u2019s causation evidence, defense expert testimony should be held to a standard of \u201cless than a reasonable medical probability.\u201d<\/p>\n
Kline involved the plaintiff\u2019s claim that the Durom Cup hip implant, manufactured by defendant Zimmer, Inc. and utilized in his first hip replacement surgery, was defective and caused him to require an additional surgery, which resulted in further injury. Evidence presented by the plaintiff at trial included an expert who testified to a reasonable medical probability that the Durom Cup\u2019s defects caused the plaintiff to need the additional surgery, which resulted in changes in his muscles and soft tissues causing him chronic pain.<\/p>\n
To read the the full article by Duane Morris attorney Michael L. Fox<\/a>, which originally appeared in the IADC Committee Newsletter, <\/em>please visit the Duane Morris LLP website<\/a>.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" Causation in personal injury actions, including product liability claims related to drugs and medical devices and toxic tort actions related to exposure to hazardous substances, must be proven within a reasonable degree of medical probability based upon competent expert testimony. That\u2019s typically the plaintiff\u2019s burden of proof. Do the defendants bear the same burden? In … <\/p>\n