Thank you for sharing!

Your article was successfully shared with the contacts you provided.
Affirming an $18 million jury verdict in a failure-to-warn and design-defect case, the Illinois Supreme Court on Jan. 25 ruled that a medical-products manufacturer was liable to the estate of a woman whose intravenous tube connector malfunctioned. Hansen v. Baxter Healthcare Corp., No. 89043. The suit is based on a 1991 accident that occurred while Andrina Hansen was being treated for stomach ulcers at Chicago’s Mt. Sinai Hospital. Fluids were administered intravenously through her jugular vein using an IV set made by Baxter Healthcare Corp. The court said Hansen suffered an air embolism when the IV connector came apart, detaching the tube from the catheter. The resulting brain damage and paralysis left Hansen lucid but unable to control her bodily functions for four years, until her death, said John Erb, one of the estate’s trial attorneys. According to the court, the “friction-fit” connector used on Hansen has two fittings that must be pushed together to maintain a connection, and is subject to inadvertent disconnection due to patient movement. Baxter also sold another connector called the “Luer-lock,” which is similar to a friction-fit, but has a locking collar to prevent accidental disconnection. In fact, the court said, Baxter stated in its patent application that the Luer-lock was designed to overcome the friction-fit’s disconnection problem. Hansen’s administrator claimed the friction-fit was unreasonably dangerous because it was designed, made and sold without the lock and it failed when used in a reasonably foreseeable manner. He also alleged that Baxter should have warned health care professionals of the likelihood of unintentional disconnection without a lock. The high court ruled that the jury could have reasonably concluded that Baxter had a duty to warn because its connector knowledge was superior to that of the medical community. On the design-defect claim, the court rejected Baxter’s argument that the learned intermediary doctrine applied, holding that the ordinary-patient test was properly used to evaluate consumer expectations because doctors had little involvement in the purchasing process. Finally, the court said the verdict could be supported under the risk-utility test because there was evidence that a Luer-lock would have prevented disconnection at a cost of less than five cents. Baxter had urged the court to adopt the standard defined by the Restatement (Third) of Torts (1998), which would allow a finding of unreasonably dangerous design only if reasonable health-care providers, knowing the foreseeable risks and therapeutic benefits, would not prescribe the device for any class of patients. But the court declined to address the argument because it was not developed in the lower courts. The ruling pleased James P. Costello, who filed an amicus brief for the Illinois Trial Lawyers Association asking the court not to adopt the Restatement test. The new test would “give manufacturers virtual immunity,” he said. Baxter’s lead appellate counsel, William R. Quinlan, said this was the only case involving friction-fit connectors in the half-century the company has been selling them. But Paul B. Episcope, Hansen’s lead trial attorney, said Baxter should not sell friction-fits just because people buy them, adding, “When does a product become extinct?” He said he tried to settle on the condition that Baxter stop selling friction-fit connectors. The estate’s $18,047,000 recovery was offset by a $2,880,000 pretrial settlement of the estate’s claim against the medical professionals.

This content has been archived. It is available exclusively through our partner LexisNexis®.

To view this content, please continue to Lexis Advance®.

Not a Lexis Advance® Subscriber? Subscribe Now

Why am I seeing this?

LexisNexis® is now the exclusive third party online distributor of the broad collection of current and archived versions of ALM's legal news publications. LexisNexis® customers will be able to access and use ALM's content by subscribing to the LexisNexis® services via Lexis Advance®. This includes content from the National Law Journal®, The American Lawyer®, Law Technology News®, The New York Law Journal® and Corporate Counsel®, as well as ALM's other newspapers, directories, legal treatises, published and unpublished court opinions, and other sources of legal information.

ALM's content plays a significant role in your work and research, and now through this alliance LexisNexis® will bring you access to an even more comprehensive collection of legal content.

For questions call 1-877-256-2472 or contact us at [email protected]


ALM Legal Publication Newsletters

Sign Up Today and Never Miss Another Story.

As part of your digital membership, you can sign up for an unlimited number of a wide range of complimentary newsletters. Visit your My Account page to make your selections. Get the timely legal news and critical analysis you cannot afford to miss. Tailored just for you. In your inbox. Every day.

Copyright © 2020 ALM Media Properties, LLC. All Rights Reserved.