William Hunt sought damages for harm caused by a Medtronic spinal cord stimulator (“SCS”) implanted in his body to alleviate his chronic back pain, which malfunctioned in March 2021. The Medtronic SCS at issue was an “FDA Class III Premarket Approved [ ] prescription medical device.” Hunt had the SCS surgically removed in June 2021.
The district court dismissed Hunt’s Washington Consumer Protection Act (“CPA”) claim because it concluded that Hunt failed to provide any evidence which established that Medtronic’s claimed misrepresentation—that he would receive the smart tablet with a software program downloaded onto it that controlled his SCS—had a public impact. The district court dismissed Hunt’s negligence claim because it concluded that Hunt failed to present expert evidence needed to establish breach of duty and causation. The district court determined that expert evidence was required because whether Medtronic’s failure to service Hunt’s SCS caused his nerve damage and consequent pain is beyond an ordinary lay person’s knowledge.
The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit stated in its unpublished Memorandum filed on March 25, 2026: “The district court did not err in granting Medtronic’s motion for summary judgment as to Hunt’s CPA claim. To prevail in a CPA action, Hunt must establish that Medtronic’s misrepresentation to Hunt that he would receive his own tablet programmer once he had an SCS installed “(a) [i]njured other persons; (b) had the capacity to injure other persons; or (c) has the capacity to injure other persons.” RCW 19.86.093(3). Hunt failed to present any evidence showing that Medtronic’s alleged misrepresentations to him were anything more than an isolated incident and therefore failed to prove that “additional plaintiffs have been or will be injured in exactly the same fashion that changes a factual pattern from a private dispute to one that affects the public interest.””
“The district court did not err in granting Medtronic’s motion for summary judgment as to Hunt’s negligence claim because Hunt lacked the expert testimony necessary to establish whether Medtronic’s failure to service his SCS breached its duties to Hunt or caused his injuries … (“In general, expert testimony is required when an essential element in the case is best established by an opinion which is beyond the expertise of a layperson.”). To prevail on a cause of action for negligence, a plaintiff must establish “(1) the existence of a duty owed, (2) breach of that duty, (3) a resulting injury, and (4) a proximate cause between the breach and the injury” … Hunt’s disclosed experts were explicit that they had no opinion as to Medtronic’s actions or inactions. Hunt’s experts also did not attribute Hunt’s injuries to Medtronic or the SCS. Indeed, one of Hunt’s experts, Dr. David Badger, attributed Hunt’s “significant radiating pain into his right lower extremity including muscle spasms and numbness” to Hunt’s car accident in December 2019. Therefore, Hunt lacked the expert testimony needed to establish breach of duty and causation under Washington law.”
Source Hunt v. Medtronic USA, Inc., No. 25-1350.
If you or a loved one suffered serious harm (or worse) as a result of a defective medical device in the United States, you should promptly find a defective medical device lawyer in your state who may investigate your medical device claim for you and represent you or your loved one in a defective medical device case, if appropriate.
Click here to visit our website or call us toll-free in the United States at 800-295-3959 to find medical device attorneys in your U.S. state who may assist you.
Turn to us when you don’t know where to turn.
