Judge Who Dismissed Hundreds of Medtronic Injury Cases Biased? Plaintiffs May Get New Life in Court

-Attorneyatlaw

02/14/2009- In a shocking twist to a landmark legal case, a Minnesota federal judge who recently dismissed the cases of hundreds of people allegedly injured by Medtronic Inc. heart-device wires has a son who is an attorney at a law firm which has represented the medical device maker in the past.

News of the close relationship and potential conflict of interest between the judge, Medtronic, and the law firm could be cause for a reversal of the dismissals and allow the cases to be reinstated in court. At the same time, it clearly highlights the blatant unfairness caused when people injured by one defective medical device do not get the same day in court as people who are hurt by a different medical device, all because of the judge who hears the case.

Case Dismissed

The judge in question, Richard H. Kyle, presides over a federal district courtroom in Minneapolis and was appointed to preside over a consolidation of about 700 lawsuits against Medtronic, the world’s largest maker of medical devices. All the cases revolves around similar injuries allegedly caused by the company’s Sprint Fidelis defibrillator leads, which connect electrical defibrillators to the hearts of more than 200,000 cardiac patients around the world.

In 2007, physicians started noticing that the Sprint Fidelis leads were more prone to fracture and malfunction than earlier products. At the time, five patient deaths were linked to the defective wires.

In January 2009, Kyle dismissed all the cases before him in the complex multidistrict litigation. In doing so, the judge cited a 2008 U.S. Supreme Court opinion, in Riegel v. Medtronic, which held that federal regulation of medical devices “preempts,” or precludes, product-liability cases from being filed under state law. In short, the judge held that the heart-device plaintiffs had no right to sue Medtronic for damages.

While Congressional leaders have vowed to change the law to once again allow such state suits against makers of defective medical devices to go forward once again, for now, Kyle’s ruling stands.

Family Ties

Attorneys for the plaintiffs who were thrown out of court by Kyle dropped their bombshell during a February 12, 2009 conference call with the judge, according to media reports. The attorneys reportedly told the judge that they consider the fact that his son, Richard H. Kyle, Jr., is an attorney with Fredrikson & Byron, which has represented Medtronic is the past but not the present case, as a disqualifying factor.

The attorneys said they intend to pursue all their legal options, including requesting that Kyle be removed and that their cases be reinstated in another court before a new judge.

For his part, Kyle and the law firm at the center of the controversy said they see no reason for him to be disqualified from the Medtronic case or for the dismissed cases to be refilled in another court. The judge said he “never thought about” the fact that his son’s law firm doing past work for Medtronic and didn’t see why that relationship might present a conflict of interest for him in ruling on the cases over injuries allegedly caused by the company’s medical devices.

Representatives of Fredrikson & Byron agreed that there is no conflict of interest, since the firm is not now and has never represented Medtronic in the medical-device injuries case. The firm reportedly does mostly large-scale merger and intellectual-property work for Medtronic, officials said.

Medtronic officials also circled the wagons and issued a statement seeking to shore up the dismissal of the Sprint Fidelis cases, saying, “The law firm of Fredrikson & Byron does not represent Medtronic in the (heart-device) litigation, nor does it represent the company in any matter before Judge Kyle. This is clearly an effort to remove a well-respected federal judge following rulings the plaintiffs’ lawyers do not like.”

No Conflict of Interest? Not so Fast

The relationship between the judge’s son and Medtronic could be enough to pump new life into the cases now lingering on life support. If the plaintiffs’ attorneys can prove that a Medtronic loss in the cases would have a substantially negative effect on the son’s law firm, such as by preventing the company from hiring the firm to represent it in the future, then the father-son relationship could be strong enough to warrant reinstatement of the cases before another judge.

It’s a tough test to meet, but one that in all fairness to the hundreds of injured plaintiffs, must be undertaken.

A Different Judge, a Different Ruling

Just days before the apparent conflict of interest between Judge Kyle and Medtonic came to light, a federal judge in Indiana issued a key ruling in a similar case, upholding the rights of a man injured by a different type of medical device to sue the company that made it. Rod Hofts received a replacement hip joint made by Howmedica Osteonics Corp. in 2004, but later began suffering from persistent pain and discomfort in his new hip.

Hofts sued the maker of the device in federal court, alleging that Howmedica had failed to comply with federal requirements for manufacturing his replacement hip. Howmedica, citing the same recent U.S. Supreme Court ruling against the filing of such state claims that was relied upon by Medtronic’s attorneys Judge Kyle’s case, claimed that federal law meant Hofts had no right to sue the company for financial damages.

But unlike Judge Kyle, who granted a similar motion to dismiss when brought by Medtronic’s attorneys, Judge David F. Hamilton, chief judge of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Indiana, held that Howmedica was attempting to stretch the Supreme Court’s ruling “beyond recognition” and apply it broadly to cases that should not be covered. Judge Hamilton’s ruling gave the green light for Hoft’s case to continue toward a jury trial.

So, within the span of a few days and separated by just a few hundred miles, a judge in Indiana issued a ruling based on a detailed legal analysis, while a judge in Minnesota may be found to have acted in the best interests of his son, not those of hundreds of injured patients.

If you or a loved one have had the device replaced or plan to have it replaced you may be entitled to compensation regardless if you suffered as a result of complications from surgery or the device itself. Contact the Medtronic attorneys of Ennis & Ennis today for a free confidential case evaluation. Our on staff nurse and lawyers are standing by to answer any questions you may have regarding the Medtronic pacemaker defects, a possible Medtronic class action lawsuit, or any other type of Medtronic Pacemaker litigation.