Renee Castaneda suffers from gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD). To remedy her condition, Castaneda
sought treatment from Dr. Ronald Richmond, M.D., who recommended implanting a LINX device in Castaneda’s esophagus. A LINX device is a titanium bead-and-wire ring that is surgically implanted around a patient’s lower esophageal sphincter to prevent acid reflux. The LINX device is contraindicated for parties with a nickel allergy, meaning that the device should not be implanted if the medical provider knows or suspects a patient has a pertinent allergy. Castaneda gave deposition testimony that she knows she has a nickel allergy based on an incident occurring over ten years ago when she wore nickel-containing jewelry that caused her skin to develop a rash, turn green, and swell. Castaneda conceded that she has never been tested for or diagnosed with a nickel allergy by a medical professional.
Castaneda disclosed her self-diagnosed nickel allergy to Dr. Richmond, who recommended implanting the LINX device despite the alleged allergy because it was made of titanium, not nickel. After surgery, Castaneda suffered from nausea, chest pains, and an inability to retain food, which she asserts were caused by an allergic reaction to the LINX device. She subsequently had the LINX device removed by a different doctor. Castaneda contends she suffered exacerbated symptoms, nerve damage, and emotional distress that were proximately caused by the installation of the LINX device. Castaneda brought suit, alleging that Dr. Richmond was negligent for surgically implanting the LINX device after she disclosed her allergy and that CGSC was negligent for allowing Dr. Richmond to do so.
The United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit stated in its unpublished Per Curiam filed on January 7, 2025: “Castaneda’s lay testimony alone is insufficient to establish that she, in fact, has a nickel allergy which caused her injuries. Castaneda next argues that Dr. Stewart’s testimony [plaintiff’s expert] is sufficient to establish causation. But Dr. Stewart did not testify that Castaneda had a nickel allergy; he merely confirmed that Castaneda said she had one. While Dr. Stewart’s testimony may be sufficient to establish a breach of duty, in that Dr. Richmond should not have implanted the device if a metal allergy was suspected, this testimony does not prove that Castaneda in fact had an allergy which could have connected Dr. Richmond’s procedure with Castaneda’s injuries. Thus, Dr. Stewart’s testimony does not create a genuine dispute as to causation … viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to Castaneda, she failed to create a genuine dispute of material fact on causation, we affirm the district court’s summary judgment order.”
Castaneda v. Dr. Ronald Richmond, M.D., No. 23-3381.
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.
