Products Liability

Gustafson Gluek was appointed one of two Co-Lead Counsel in this significant Mass Tort MDL (consolidated in the District of Minnesota) against Medtronic, Inc. The claims arising in this MDL related to certain of Medtronic’s implantable cardioverter defibrillators (ICDs), and cardiac resynchronization therapy defibrillators (CRT-Ds) that contained serious battery defects, which resulted in a recall of the products at issue. Plaintiff alleged that Medtronic, Inc. intentionally withheld important information from the FDA and the public and continued to sell the fevices for implantation into patients facing life-threatening heart conditions. Plaintiffs alleged that Medtronic’s disregard for safety resulted in a significant public health crisis ultimately resulting in the recall of approximately 87,000 Devices. Gustafson Gluek was appointed one of two co-lead counsel in the case. After surviving a motion for summary judgment and various motions to dismiss brought by defendants, the cases in the MDL ultimately settled for approximately 100 million dollars plus a payment of 18 million dollars in attorneys’ fees. Given its role as co-lead counsel, Gustafson Gluek had a significant role in all aspects of the case.

Gustafson Gluek was appointed sole Lead Counsel in this significant Mass Tort MDL (consolidated in the District of Minnesota) against Medtronic, Inc. The claims arising in this MDL related to Medtronic’s Sprint Fidelis Leads that contained serious defects that cause the leads to fracture and unnecessarily shock people in whom they are implanted. This defect resulted in a recall of the products at issue. Plaintiff alleged that Medtronic, Inc. intentionally withheld important information from the FDA and the public and continued to sell the devices for implantation into patients facing life-threatening heart conditions. Plaintiffs alleged that Medtronic’s disregard for safety resulted in a significant public health crisis ultimately resulting in the recall of the devices. There were approximately 250,000 of these devices sold. Although the complaint was dismissed at the district court based primarily on preemption related issues, the case is now pending at the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals. Plaintiffs are cautiously optimistic about the possibility of reversal of the district court’s dismissal order. Related cases were also filed in Minnesota State Court. Representative cases in the state court were also dismissed on preemption grounds and are currently pending before the Minnesota Court of Appeals.