Preview:

PATRICIA ADELMANN-                                                                      *                                                                      NO. 2008-CA-0770
CHESTER, ET AL.
*                                                                                       COURT OF APPEAL
VERSUS
*                                                                                       FOURTH CIRCUIT
JOHN N. KENT, D.D.S.,
LOUISIANA STATE                                                                         *                                                                      STATE OF LOUISIANA
UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF
DENTISTRY AND FACULTY                                                                   *
DENTAL PRACTICE, ET AL.
                                                                                        *
*
BELSOME, J. DISSENTS WITH REASONS.
Summary  judgment  is  improper  where  there  are  one  or  more  issues  of
material fact.   See La. Code Civ. P. art. 966(c).   Thus, whether Dr. Kent is liable
under the LPLA as a manufacturer is a factual question and not appropriate for
summary judgment.   A “manufacturer” is defined under La. R.S. 9:2800.53(1) as
“a person or entity who is in the business of manufacturing a product for placement
into trade or commerce.”   La. R.S. 9:2800.53(1).                                       “Manufacturing a product” is
defined    as                                                                           “producing,    making,    fabricating,    constructing,   designing,
remanufacturing, reconditioning, or refurbishing a product.”   Id. (emphasis added);
See  also  Cook  v.  United  Container  Machinery  Co.,                                 98-120  (La.App.  5  Cir.
5/27/98), 712 So.2d 307 (finding that the extent of an employee’s role in designing
printer slotter, determinative of whether employer could be deemed a manufacturer
under the LPLA, constituted issue of material fact precluding summary judgment).
It is not disputed that Dr. Kent designed the shape of the glenoid fossa in the VK-I
and VK-II, and, as the majority notes, obtained several design patents regarding the
shape of the implants and drafted package inserts for some Vitek devices.    I
respectfully dissent.

Download 231877.pdf

Louisiana Law