Unreported / Non-Citable
Background
Steven Albert lost consciousness and was hospitalized in June 2023, when medical providers discovered that his Assurity pacemaker’s battery had depleted prematurely. He, his wife, and his daughter later sued the pacemaker’s manufacturer, Pacesetter, Inc., asserting strict-liability and negligent-manufacturing-defect claims under Texas law.
The Alberts alleged that incompletely mixed epoxy allowed moisture to enter the pacemaker’s pulse-generator head, prematurely draining the battery and causing Albert’s symptoms and medical treatment. After removing the case to federal court based on diversity jurisdiction, Pacesetter sought summary judgment, arguing that the Alberts lacked expert testimony connecting the alleged defect to Albert’s injuries. The district court adopted a magistrate judge’s recommendation and granted the motion.
The Court’s Holding
The Fifth Circuit affirmed. Applying Texas law, the court explained that expert causation testimony is unnecessary in a personal-injury case involving a medical condition only when general experience and common sense allow a layperson to determine the causal relationship with reasonable probability.
The alleged causal chain—from improperly mixed epoxy, to moisture intrusion, to premature battery depletion, to Albert’s asserted medical injuries—was not within lay jurors’ general experience or common sense. Because the Alberts presented no expert evidence supporting causation, Mr. Albert’s claims failed, and the separate claims asserted by his wife and daughter failed as well.
Key Takeaways
- Texas law requires expert causation evidence when a claimed connection between an alleged product defect and a medical condition falls outside ordinary lay knowledge.
- The Fifth Circuit concluded that jurors could not use common experience alone to evaluate whether the alleged pacemaker defect caused Albert’s injuries.
- The failure of Mr. Albert’s causation showing also defeated his wife’s and daughter’s claims.
Why It Matters
The decision underscores the importance of timely expert evidence in complex medical-device litigation. Evidence suggesting that a device malfunctioned does not by itself establish that the alleged manufacturing defect caused the plaintiff’s medical injuries.
Derivative or related family-member claims may also rise or fall with the injured plaintiff’s ability to prove causation.