ILNews

COA: Guidant suit to stay in Indiana

Michael W. Hoskins
January 1, 2007
Keywords
Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share
The state's second-highest appeals court is allowing a class-action lawsuit involving Guidant Corp. defibrillators to proceed in Marion County, though the ruling won't affect similar federal or state suits.

A three-judge Indiana Court of Appeals panel ruled Thursday in Cardiac Pacemakers, Inc. v. Ryan Terry and Linda Mason, No. 49A04-0704-CV-240, that Terry and Mason could continue a class-action product-liability lawsuit against Guidant over now-recalled defibrillators or pacemakers.

Minnesota-based Cardiac Pacemakers Inc., a subsidiary of Guidant, manufactured the devices and wanted to get involved in the suit so that it could be moved to a federal court in its home state, where many similar cases have been moved for pre-trial proceedings.

Guidant announced a collective settlement of the federal court cases earlier this year; those are on hold while individual plaintiffs determine whether to accept that settlement.

This Indiana case is not affected by the federal halt, but Cardiac Pacemakers argued that the plaintiffs, Linda Mason and Ryan Terry, were trying to sidestep the federal litigation by keeping their case in state court.

Attorneys representing Mason and Terry seek to recover damages on behalf of a class of "several thousand" Hoosiers who received the defective defibrillators.

Marion Superior Judge Robyn Moberly denied Cardiac Pacemakers from intervening and ordered the case to remain in Indiana so no undue burden would be placed on the individuals suing and delays wouldn't be added by transferring the case to a federal court.

"The desire to resolve disputes between citizens of Indiana in our local courts outweighs the benefit of federal jurisdiction in this lawsuit as this time," Judge Moberly wrote in her Jan. 2 order. "Hoosiers rightfully expect that when they have a dispute with another Hoosier, that they will not have to travel to Minnesota, or any other state, to have their day in court."

The decision is Not for Publication. Attorneys have 30 days from the decision to decide whether they want to ask for the ruling to be published.Indianapolis-based Guidant was acquired for $27 billion in May 2006 by Boston Scientific Corp., which is headquartered in Natick, Mass.
ADVERTISEMENT

Post a comment to this story

COMMENTS POLICY
We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
 
You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
 
Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in Indiana Lawyer editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
 
No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
 
We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.
 

Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

Sponsored by
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. Paul Ogden doing a fine job of remembering his peer Gary Welsh with the post below and a call for an Indy gettogether to celebrate Gary .... http://www.ogdenonpolitics.com/2016/05/indiana-loses-citizen-journalist-giant.html Castaways of Indiana, unite!

  2. It's unfortunate that someone has attempted to hijack the comments to promote his own business. This is not an article discussing the means of preserving the record; no matter how it's accomplished, ethics and impartiality are paramount concerns. When a party to litigation contracts directly with a reporting firm, it creates, at the very least, the appearance of a conflict of interest. Court reporters, attorneys and judges are officers of the court and must abide by court rules as well as state and federal laws. Parties to litigation have no such ethical responsibilities. Would we accept insurance companies contracting with judges? This practice effectively shifts costs to the party who can least afford it while reducing costs for the party with the most resources. The success of our justice system depends on equal access for all, not just for those who have the deepest pockets.

  3. As a licensed court reporter in California, I have to say that I'm sure that at some point we will be replaced by speech recognition. However, from what I've seen of it so far, it's a lot farther away than three years. It doesn't sound like Mr. Hubbard has ever sat in a courtroom or a deposition room where testimony is being given. Not all procedures are the same, and often they become quite heated with the ends of question and beginning of answers overlapping. The human mind can discern the words to a certain extent in those cases, but I doubt very much that a computer can yet. There is also the issue of very heavy accents and mumbling. People speak very fast nowadays, and in order to do that, they generally slur everything together, they drop or swallow words like "the" and "and." Voice recognition might be able to produce some form of a transcript, but I'd be very surprised if it produces an accurate or verbatim transcript, as is required in the legal world.

  4. Really enjoyed the profile. Congratulations to Craig on living the dream, and kudos to the pros who got involved to help him realize the vision.

  5. Why in the world would someone need a person to correct a transcript when a realtime court reporter could provide them with a transcript (rough draft) immediately?

ADVERTISEMENT