The plaintiff had hip replacement surgery in 1994. Due to the premature failure of the prosthesis, he suffered pain and other problems and was required to undergo a revision surgery to replace a part of the prosthesis in 1996. Plaintiff was informed by a treating physician that the original prosthesis was the subject of various product defect claims in 2001, and filed suit in 2002. The district court dismissed the product liability claim as barred under Connecticut’s three-year statute of limitations, concluding that, based on the revision surgery in 1996, and publicly available information published in medical journals in 1997, plaintiff, with a diligent effort, “could” have discovered her cause of action no later than 1998. The court of appeal reversed. “When determining whether a plaintiff failed to exercise ‘reasonable care’ in discovering a claim, the inquiry is not when the injury could have been discovered; rather, it is when the injury should have been discovered.” Bogdan v. Zimmer, Inc., No. 05-2087, 165 Fed. Appx. 883 (2d Cir. 2006).
Leave a Reply