Figueroa v. Boston Scientific Corp.

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• holding that no proximate causation existed where “a treating physician is well aware of the risks of a medical device, independent of any warning by the manufacturer”
• holding that differential diagnosis was not necessary where the expert had reviewed witness depositions, medical records, and peer-reviewed scientific literature, and a strong temporal connection existed between the incident and injury
• admitting expert testimony from a doctor who had not physically examined the patient on the grounds that his years of education, training and practical experience made his testimony sufficiently reliable
• “An act cannot be the ‘substantial cause’ if the injury would have occurred regardless of the content of defendant’s warning.”
• failure to “rule out alternative causes . . . goes to the weight of the evidence rather than its admissibility”
• “an expert basing his opinion solely on experience must do more than aver conclusorily that his experience led to his opinion.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).