Legal Opinion
Jessen v. Mentor Corp.
California Court of Appeal
Decided January 16, 2008No. B191278PublishedCited by 1 opinion
1Opinion of the Court
Opinion
PERLUSS, P. J.
David Jessen appeals from the judgment entered after the trial court granted summary judgment in favor of Mentor Corporation in this product liability action. We affirm.
FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
On October 10, 2003 Jessen had a cancerous testicle removed and replaced with a testicular prosthesis, a class III medical device, designed, manufactured, labeled and sold by “Mentor as the Mentor Saline-Filled Testicular Prosthesis.” The prosthesis, which had been shipped unfilled, was not filled with saline solution prior to implantation as directed in the enclosed…
2Cases cited36 opinions
- Cipollone v. Liggett Group, Inc.Supreme Court of the United States · 1992
- Medtronic, Inc. v. LohrSupreme Court of the United States · 1996
- English v. General Electric Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1990
- Guz v. Bechtel National, Inc.California Supreme Court · 2000
- Intel Corp. v. HamidiCalifornia Supreme Court · 2003
31 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by1 opinion
- Jessen v. Mentor Corp.California Court of Appeal · 2008