Unreported / Non-Citable
Background
Robert Lee Morrison sued Zimmer Biomet and related entities over metal-on-metal hip implants placed in his right hip in 2005 and left hip in 2006. He alleged that the devices released cobalt and chromium into his body, causing metallosis, tissue and bone damage, severe pain, and the need for multiple revision surgeries. According to the complaint, Morrison did not know the implants were defective or causing injury until blood tests revealed elevated metal levels in August 2022.
Biomet moved for judgment on the pleadings under Rule 12(c), arguing that Texas’s 15-year products-liability statute of repose barred all claims. Alternatively, it argued that Morrison had not adequately pleaded causation and reliance for his failure-to-warn, misrepresentation, and fraud theories, and that his fraud claim lacked the particularity required by Rule 9(b). Morrison invoked the statutory exception for diseases caused by product exposure and separately sought leave to file a surreply.
The Court’s Holding
The court denied judgment on the statute-of-repose defense. At the pleading stage, Morrison sufficiently alleged exposure to metal particles within the repose period, a resulting condition caused by that exposure, and symptoms that did not manifest sufficiently to put a reasonable person on notice until after 15 years. The court did not conclusively decide that metallosis is a “disease” under the Texas statute. Instead, it held that whether metallosis qualifies and whether the statutory exception encompasses injuries from implanted medical devices were better resolved on a fuller record at summary judgment or trial.
The court also rejected Biomet’s pleading-stage challenges to causation and reliance, concluding that Morrison adequately alleged deficient warnings and that the defects produced his injuries. His fraud claim, however, did not satisfy Rule 9(b) because the complaint failed to identify who made or concealed the alleged misrepresentations and each defendant’s role in the fraud. The court denied the motion without prejudice as to that claim and allowed Morrison until September 23, 2026, to amend it. The court denied his motion for leave to file a surreply as moot.
Key Takeaways
- A medical-device claim alleging gradual exposure to metal particles and delayed symptoms may survive a Rule 12(c) statute-of-repose challenge under Texas’s disease exception.
- The court did not hold that metallosis categorically qualifies as a disease; that issue remains for resolution on a developed evidentiary record.
- Morrison adequately pleaded warning defect and causation, but his fraud claim required greater specificity about the speakers and each corporate defendant’s role.
Why It Matters
The ruling declines to adopt a categorical rule excluding injuries from implanted medical devices from Texas’s statutory disease exception. For plaintiffs alleging metallosis from metal-on-metal implants, detailed allegations of prolonged particle exposure, delayed manifestation, and resulting tissue damage may be sufficient to avoid dismissal on the pleadings.
The decision nevertheless leaves the central statutory question unresolved and allows Biomet to renew its repose defense after discovery. It also underscores that common-law fraud claims against affiliated corporate defendants must identify the responsible actors and distinguish each entity’s alleged conduct.