MON-FRI 8:30AM-5:30PM
English or Spanish
MON-FRI 8:30AM-5:30PM
English or Spanish
A manufacturer remains liable for inadequate disclosure of a known or foreseeable danger connected to its device, regardless of how properly the device was designed and built.
The Supreme Court has recognized that a properly made product can still create liability if it lacks adequate warnings about a non-obvious danger. Failure to warn is a different kind of claim than manufacturing or design defect.
A device can be built exactly as planned with no design flaws, and a manufacturer can still be liable for withholding information about a risk patients or doctors needed to make an informed decision. That distinction matters because a patient can be injured by a device that performed exactly as engineered, simply because no one told them or their doctor what to watch for.
Many jurisdictions apply the learned intermediary doctrine, under which a manufacturer can satisfy its duty by warning the prescribing physician rather than the patient directly. Courts reason that the physician is positioned to weigh the risk and pass relevant information along, though whether this doctrine applies, and how, depends on the device and the state where the claim is brought.
A warning claim often turns on specific gaps in what the manufacturer disclosed and when. Several factors can make a warning inadequate.
Evidence often traces a timeline from clinical studies and adverse event reports through to any labeling change or recall, since that chronology can show what the manufacturer knew and when it knew it.
Failure to warn claims depend heavily on records the medical device manufacturer controls, including labeling history and internal safety communications. Our office reviews that history alongside your medical records to identify what your doctor was and was not told. Contact us for a free consultation, and our legal team will explain how this theory may apply to your case.