## Facts

- Travis Crowther underwent total hip-replacement surgery in July 2007.
- Crowther’s surgeons implanted prosthetic hip components manufactured by Wright Medical Technology, Inc.
- Crowther later developed metallosis, which he alleged occurs when metal implant components rub abnormally, producing metal debris and ions that inflame surrounding tissue and cause other complications.
- In May 2018, Crowther underwent revision surgery to remove components of the Wright implant.
- During the revision surgery, the surgeons observed black residue between the ball and socket components.
- Crowther sued Wright in the United States District Court for the District of Utah, asserting products-liability claims including a manufacturing-defect (manufacturing-flaw) theory.
- Crowther alleged that the ball head and socket/acetabular components in his implant differed in size from Wright’s manufacturing specifications and from other implants in the same product line that were supposed to be identical.
- Crowther alleged that the size variation changed the clearance between the articulating surfaces in his implant, increasing wear and metal-on-metal contact and resulting in pain and metallosis.
- Crowther’s amended complaint included supporting materials (including a consultant’s/engineer’s analysis) to support the claim that his specific implant components deviated from specifications.
- Wright filed a partial motion to dismiss under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), challenging only the manufacturing-defect claim as insufficiently pleaded.

## Issues

1. Whether Crowther’s amended complaint alleged enough nonconclusory facts to plausibly state a Utah products-liability manufacturing-defect claim—i.e., a deviation from specifications (or from other identical units) and a causal link to metallosis—so as to survive Wright’s Rule 12(b)(6) motion.

## Decision

- The court denied Wright’s Rule 12(b)(6) partial motion to dismiss.
- The court held that Crowther plausibly alleged a manufacturing defect by identifying the components at issue (ball head and socket/acetabular parts), alleging that his specific device deviated from Wright’s specifications and from other ostensibly identical devices, and alleging that the altered clearance caused abnormal wear, metallosis, and the need for revision surgery.
- The manufacturing-defect claim remained in the case for discovery and further proceedings.

## Legal Principles

- Under Rule 12(b)(6), a complaint must include enough factual matter, accepted as true, to state a claim that is plausible on its face; labels and legal conclusions are not sufficient.
- On a motion to dismiss, the court accepts well-pleaded factual allegations as true and draws reasonable inferences in the plaintiff’s favor.
- A manufacturing-defect claim focuses on whether the particular unit departed from its intended design or the manufacturer’s specifications (or from other units that were meant to be the same), rather than whether the product line’s overall design is unsafe.
- Under Utah products-liability principles applied at the pleading stage, a plaintiff must plausibly allege a defect that made the product unreasonably dangerous, that the defect existed when it left the defendant’s control, and that the defect caused the plaintiff’s injury.
- Allegations that specify the parts involved, describe the nature of the claimed deviation (here, dimensional differences affecting clearance), and connect that deviation to the injury can be sufficient at the pleading stage, even if the plaintiff cannot yet identify the exact manufacturing step that went wrong.
- A “manufacturing defect” and “manufacturing flaw” are treated as the same cause of action, reflecting a difference in wording without a difference in legal effect.

## Conclusion

In Crowther v. Wright Medical Technology, Inc., the District of Utah denied Wright’s Rule 12(b)(6) partial motion to dismiss because Crowther’s amended complaint plausibly alleged that his specific hip implant’s ball-and-socket components deviated from Wright’s specifications and from other supposedly identical devices, resulting in abnormal clearance, metal wear, metallosis, and revision surgery, which was enough to proceed past the pleading stage under federal plausibility standards and Utah products-liability law.


Crowther v. Wright Medical Technology, Inc., 2019 WL 1059966 (2019)