## Facts

- Denise Parker underwent TMJ surgeries at St. Vincent Hospital in 1983 and 1986 in which her surgeon implanted TMJ devices.
- The implanted devices were manufactured by Vitek, Inc. and contained Teflon supplied by DuPont.
- Parker alleged the devices’ design caused abrasion leading to adverse tissue reactions and bone erosion.
- Parker and her husband sued the hospital, alleging (1) strict products liability for supplying defectively designed implants and (2) negligence, including failure to investigate implant safety before providing them for use in the hospital.
- The district court granted summary judgment for the hospital on both theories; plaintiffs appealed.

## Issues

1. Whether a hospital providing implanted medical devices as part of surgical care may be held strictly liable as a seller/distributor for an alleged design defect.
2. Whether summary judgment was proper on plaintiffs’ negligence theory that the hospital failed to exercise due care, including by not investigating the safety of the implants, and whether the pleadings gave sufficient notice of a negligence claim.

## Decision

- The court affirmed summary judgment for the hospital on strict products liability.
- The court reversed summary judgment for the hospital on negligence and remanded for further proceedings.
- The court held that, on this record, it could not determine whether the hospital had a duty to investigate implant safety or whether it exercised due care, making summary judgment improper.
- The court held the complaint’s allegations provided adequate notice of a negligence theory despite “products liability” labeling.

## Legal Principles

- Strict products liability applies to entities in the chain of distribution, but a hospital is not treated as a strict-liability distributor when furnishing an implanted device is incidental to providing medical services in the circumstances presented.
- Hospitals are not categorically exempt from being considered product distributors, but policy considerations may warrant rejecting strict liability where the transaction is primarily medical treatment rather than product marketing.
- Even when strict products liability is unavailable, ordinary negligence claims against a hospital may proceed if allegations and evidence support a duty and breach related to the hospital’s conduct in allowing products to be used in its facility.
- Pleading labels are not controlling; allegations that describe a duty of care and its breach can give fair notice of a negligence claim.

## Conclusion

The court held the hospital could not be held strictly liable for alleged design defects in implanted TMJ devices supplied in connection with surgery, but it allowed plaintiffs to pursue negligence claims because the pleadings and summary-judgment record did not resolve whether the hospital owed, and breached, a duty of due care regarding implant safety.


Parker v. St. Vincent Hosp., 919 P.2d 1104 (N.M. Ct. App. 1996)