In the ongoing saga that has been laced with legal intricacies and forms the backdrop of many conversations in the corporate legal landscape, Thelen v. Somatics, LLC, appears as the most recent chapter. The U.S. District court case – Thelen v. Somatics, LLC, 2023 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 165819 (Mag. M.D. Fla. Sept. 18, 2023) throws light on a plaintiff’s inability to evade costs by merely citing indigency or a jury’s findings of warning inadequacy.
The plaintiff in this case alleged to have sustained injuries from electroconvulsive therapy (ECT), a form of medical treatment. The party being sued is the manufacturer of the ECT device, Somatics, LLC. The defendant faced allegations involving negligence, strict liability, breach of warranty, and violation of Nebraska’s Consumer Protection Act. These claims were pursued aggressively by the plaintiff.
After a jury trial, the court held that Thelen, the plaintiff, could not escape paying costs despite her argument of ‘indigency.’ The jury further concluded that the manufacturer had not provided sufficient warning about the device’s risks, but this finding alone did not shield the plaintiff from the costs resulting from her legal action against Somatics.
This case forms an important marker for future litigation involving medical device manufacturers and should be noted by legal professionals for its implications on cost assignment post-trial.