Share on LinkedInShare on LinkedIn

ARTICLE · 15 SEPTEMBER 2023

D.S.C. Dismisses Most Claims Against Blood Temperature Regulator Device

South Carolina is a lovely state with mostly lovely weather, though this time of year its appearance on the map looks like the country's jutted chin daring a hurricane to sock it.

United StatesLitigation, Mediation & Arbitration

South Carolina is a lovely state with mostly lovely weather, though this time of year its appearance on the map looks like the country's jutted chin daring a hurricane to sock it. South Carolina courts have been known to sock it to defendants, particularly in asbestos cases.

Luckily, asbestos has nothing to do with today's case, Britt v. Sorin Grp. Deutschland GmbH, 2023 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 158410 (D.S.C. Sept. 6, 2023). From the perspective of your friendly neighborhood defense hack, the court's decision is more good than bad. The defendant medical device manufacturer won all its summary judgment motions, except for punitive damages. The case is frankly a bit weird, because the plaintiff seemed to be claiming that the defendant's device, which regulates blood temperature during an operation, caused an unusual bacterial infection years after the fact with no intervening problems.

We operate a free-to-view policy, asking only that you register in order to read all of our content. Please login or register to view the rest of this article.

This article is presented for informational purposes only and is not intended to constitute legal advice.

See more popular content from