Taylor v. Intuitive Surgical, Inc. – July 2015 (Summary)

DUTY TO WARN

Taylor v. Intuitive Surgical, Inc., No. 45052-6-II (Wash. Ct. App. July 7, 2015)

In a case that made headlines in the New York Times a few years ago, “Salesmen in the Surgical Suite,” the Washington Court of Appeals rejected a patient’s argument that the manufacturer of the da Vinci robot had a duty to warn the hospital, in addition to the surgeon, of the risks associated with the device. The court held that under the state’s Tort Reform and Products Liability Act, applying the “learned intermediary” doctrine, a medical device manufacturer only has a duty to warn a physician of the dangers associated with its product; thereafter, it is the physician’s duty to warn the patient.

In this case, the patient’s prostatectomy was performed by a surgeon who used the da Vinci robot. The patient’s surgery was the first time the surgeon used the da Vinci robot without a proctor being present. The surgeon opted to use the robot even though the patient was morbidly obese and the manufacturer warned against using the device for such patients.

The case took more than 15 hours and the patient suffered multiple complications. The patient never fully recovered from the operative complications he endured and he sued the surgeon, the hospital and the manufacturer of the da Vinci robot. After settling with the surgeon and dropping the hospital as a defendant, the case went forward against the manufacturer. The patient argued that the manufacturer had a duty to warn not only the physician but also the hospital. The court disagreed.

The court held that the manufacturer only had a duty to warn the physician of the dangers of the product. According to the court, the patient places “primary reliance” on the physician’s informed judgment, rather than whatever warnings the manufacturer may have included. Therefore, the physician is in a superior position to warn the patient. The court was unpersuaded that the warning should be provided to the hospital because the hospital purchased the equipment. “The learned intermediary doctrine is not concerned with who pays for the product…. Rather, its rationale is based on the physician’s role as gatekeeper.” Thus, the court refused to overturn the jury verdict in favor of the manufacturer.