Fajardo v. Boston Scientific Corp.
Citations
- 341 Conn. 535
Syllabus
Pursuant to this court's decision in Bifolck v. Philip Morris, Inc. (324 Conn. 402), under the risk-utility test, a product is in a defective condition that is unreasonably dangerous to the consumer if (1) a reasonable alternative design that would have avoided or reduced the risk of harm was available and the absence of that alternative design renders the product unreasonably dangerous, or (2) the product is a manifestly unreasonable design in that the risk of harm so clearly exceeds the product's utility that a reasonable consumer, informed of those risks and utility, would not purchase the product. The listing of justices reflects their seniority status on this court as of the date of oral argument. 536 FEBRUARY, 2022 341 Conn. 535 Fajardo v. Boston Scientific Corp. The plaintiffs, F and F's husband, sought to recover damages from, among others, the defendant L, who was F's gynecologist, L's medical practice, and the defendant B Co. for personal injuries that F sustained in connec- tion with an unsuccessful surgery in which a transvaginal mesh sling designed by B Co., known as the Obtryx, was implanted in F's body for the purpose of treating F's stress urinary incontinence. During F's annual health examination, L diagnosed F with pelvic organ prolapse and recom- mended that he perform a surgical repair known as a colporrhaphy. L also recommended that F undergo a sling procedure to rectify her stress urinary incontinence. Because L did not perform the sling procedure, he referred F to P, a urologist. P described to F the risks and benefits of, and alternatives to, the sling procedure, and F gave P her informed consent to proceed with both the colporrhaphy and the sling procedure. The procedures were scheduled for the same day but performed consec- utively. Immediately after L performed the colporrhaphy, P implanted the Obtryx in F. Thereafter, F continued to experience pain and had the Obtryx removed. The plaintiffs' complaint included claims against L and L's med
Judges: Robinson; Palmer; D’Auria; Mullins; Kahn; Ecker
Read full opinion on CourtListenerSourced from CourtListener / Free Law Project (CC0).
This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.