Wash. burned heart victim taps into Calif. punitives
Here’s the problem: You’re in a state that doesn’t allow punitive damages for your client’s claim.
What are your options in opening the door to punitives under the law of another state?
The Washington Court of Appeals has charted one course of action in the case of a heart patient who was injured by a medical device manufactured by a California company.
In upholding an $8.5 million punitive award, the court decided that California’s interest in deterring fraud trumped Washington’s “strong policy” against punitive damages.
The case was brought by Paramjit Singh, who in 2004 entered the Providence Everett Medical Center in Washington to undergo routine heart bypass surgery.
During surgery, an Edwards Lifesciences’ monitor malfunctioned, causing a catheter to overheat and destroy Singh’s heart. Doctors later performed a heart transplant that saved Singh’s life.
Edwards, a California company, conceded partial liability with respect to compensatory damages.
But that concession appeared to be a rather cynical calculation in light of evidence of serious corporate wrongdoing.
According to evidence introduced at trial, Edwards knew there was a software defect in the heart monitor device as early as 1998 (the device was ultimately recalled in 2006).
That evidence placed the issue of punitive damages squarely on the table.
And because Washington law did not permit Paramjit to recover punitive damages and California did, the court had a classic choice-of-law issue to unravel.
In unpacking that bag, the controlling principle was that Washington employs the “most significant relationship” test in determining which state’s law applies to a given issue.
Given the numerous Washington contacts in the case, Edwards must have felt pretty secure with the strength of its position.
But the court dashed any expectations the company may have had that the $8.5 million punitive award would be overturned.
“[T]he conduct which resulted in the injury occurred in California,” said the court. “Edwards’ corporate headquarters are located in California and the defect in the software was discovered in California as early as 1998. And by 2002, the foreseeable heating of the catheter in a surgical setting was known by Edwards and again the decision was made in California not to recall or warn users. Had the warning been given, Providence could have used [one of its] ‘repaired’ monitors for its bypass surgeries and Singh would not have been injured.”
The court concluded that where “an entity headquartered in California, committed the conduct in California that resulted in the plaintiff’s damages, California had the greater interest in deterring such fraudulent activities.” (Singh v. Edwards Life Sciences Corp.)
— Pat Murphy
patrick.murphy@lawyersusaonline.com
Get the latest key cases from the federal and state courts on Twitter!
