What are the typical defense strategies used in medical device injury cases?

When it comes to medical device injury cases, the defendant will often use defensive strategies to counter the plaintiff’s claims. In South Dakota, the most common defense strategies used in medical device injury cases include lack of causation, insufficient evidence of product defect, or pre-existing physical conditions of the patient. In a lack of causation defense, the defendant typically argues that the use of the medical device did not directly cause the injury. The defendant may argue that the injury was due to an existing medical condition or negligence on the patient’s part. To establish this, the defendant may present test results and medical records to support their argument. In addition, the defendant may also argue that there is insufficient evidence of product defect. This means that the defendant claims that the medical device was not defective or at fault for the injury. The defendant may present similar devices without the defect or evidence of proper testing before the device was released for marketing. Lastly, the defendant may argue that the plaintiff’s pre-existing physical conditions caused the injury. This argument is used when the plaintiff’s medical records show that the plaintiff had an existing medical condition before using the device. The defendant may use this information to prove that the plaintiff’s health condition was a major contributor to the injury, not the device. Overall, the most common defense strategies used in medical device injury cases in South Dakota are lack of causation, insufficient evidence of product defect, and pre-existing physical conditions of the plaintiff. These strategies are used by the defendant to counter the plaintiff’s claims and establish that the medical device was not to blame for the injury.

What are the typical defense strategies used in medical device injury cases?

Related FAQs

Related Blog Posts