Share on LinkedInShare on LinkedIn

ARTICLE · 29 SEPTEMBER 2023

Losing Plaintiff Cannot Evade Costs By Pointing To Indigency Or Jury Finding Of Warning Inadequacy

Thelen v. Somatics, LLC, 2023 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 165819 (Mag. M.D. Fla. Sept. 18, 2023), is the latest chapter in a saga we have covered before. (We discussed decisions on expert admissibility here...

United StatesLitigation, Mediation & Arbitration

Thelen v. Somatics, LLC, 2023 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 165819 (Mag. M.D. Fla. Sept. 18, 2023), is the latest chapter in a saga we have covered before. (We discussed decisions on expert admissibility here, invalid claims here, confidentiality of medical records here, and the plaintiff's highly unusual demand for a plant inspection here.) The plaintiff claimed to have suffered injuries as a result of electroconvulsive therapy (ECT). The plaintiff sued the manufacturer of the ECT medical device, pursuing causes of action for negligence, strict liability, breach of warranty, and violation of the Nebraska Consumer Protection Act.

The plaintiff ultimately went to trial on his remaining claims (negligence and strict liability) and recovered ... nothing. The jury found a warning defect, which was nice for the plaintiff, but also found no proximate causation, which was even nicer for the defendant. Overall, we'd have to say the result was much nicer for the defendant than the

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