Legal Opinion · Dissent

Freedman v. Medtronic, Inc.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York

Decided March 19, 1991Published

1DissentMurphy, P. J.

I would reverse and grant defendant’s motion for summary judgment.

Plaintiff seeks damages for injuries resulting from an allegedly defective pacemaker device manufactured by defendant. Two causes of action are pleaded, sounding in negligence and strict products liability. This appeal involves only the timeliness of the action.

A pacemaker device manufactured by defendant was surgically implanted in plaintiff in October, 1983. Shortly after implantation, plaintiff complained of palpitations. In March of 1984, surgeons attempted to correct the malfunction. They determined that the pulse…

2Cases cited3 opinions

  1. Martin v. Edwards LaboratoriesNew York Court of Appeals · 1983
  2. Bingham v. GodfreyAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1985
  3. Fitzpatrick v. A. H. Robins Co.Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1984

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API