Legal Opinion
In re Smith & Nephew Birmingham Hip Resurfacing (BHR) Hip Implant Prods. Liab. Litig.
District Court, D. Maryland
Decided March 26, 2018No. Civil Action No. CCB–17–2775PublishedCited by 15 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
Catherine C. Blake, United States District Judge
Memorandum
Plaintiffs from 42 states and jurisdictions1 have together filed more than 200 suits claiming that the defendant, Smith & Nephew, is liable under eight state common law theories of liability-strict products liability; negligence; strict liability for failure to warn; negligent failure to warn; negligent misrepresentation; negligence per se; breach of express warranty; and manufacturing defect-for, among other things, misrepresenting the safety of the defendant's Birmingham Hip Resurfacing device and failing to report adverse incidents…
2Cases cited38 opinions
- Ashcroft v. IqbalSupreme Court of the United States · 2009
- Bell Atlantic Corp. v. TwomblySupreme Court of the United States · 2007
- Hines v. DavidowitzSupreme Court of the United States · 1941
- Medtronic, Inc. v. LohrSupreme Court of the United States · 1996
- Wyeth v. LevineSupreme Court of the United States · 2009
33 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by15 opinions
- Albritton v. Smith & Nephew, Inc.District Court, D. Maryland · 2021
- Bradby v. Bimbo Bakeries USA, Inc.District Court, D. Maryland · 2024
- Estate of Mary Jean Grillo v. ThompsonDistrict Court, D. Maryland · 2022
- Gowin v. Smith & Nephew, Inc.District Court, D. Maryland · 2019
- Gowin v. Smith & Nephew, Inc.District Court, D. Maryland · 2019
10 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.