A Chicago federal appeals panel made quick work of a “dubious” suit by an Arkansas man, who attempted to extract more money from a class action lawsuit over allegedly defective artificial hip devices, by claiming the “settlement agreement” he signed with the hip device maker was not an agreement, but actually a nonbinding offer.
The May 29 ruling was delivered by judges Frank Easterbrook, David Hamilton and Amy Barrett, of the U.S. Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals. Their decision flattened a suit lodged by Donald W. Eastman against Biomet Inc., a medical device company based in Warsaw, Ind. Eastman, who is a chiropractor and artificial hip recipient, did not have an attorney, instead representing himself in court.
The ruling, which was made the same day the appeal was lodged, was filed as a nonprecedential disposition, to be only cited in accordance with Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 32.1.
Easterbrook
Eastman was part of a 2,500-member class action in U.S. District Court for Northern Indiana, which alleged Biomet’s artificial hips released metal debris into recipients’ systems, causing inflammation and other health problems, as well as requiring replacement.
Eastman accepted $25,000, releasing Biomet from any further claims. Two months later in Arkansas federal court, Eastman asserted Biomet breached the settlement agreement and was obliged to instead pay him $200,000. Over Eastman’s objection, his suit was moved to Northern Indiana federal court.
Biomet said Eastman, in accepting the $25,000, had signed a release in which he agreed to abandon any claims against the company. Eastman presented, in the eyes of the appeals panel, the “surprising and unavailing” response that his release was actually a counteroffer, not a binding contract. In support of his contention, Eastman said he made “clandestine changes” to the release before he signed, changing “irrevocable” to “revocable” and “binding” to “nonbinding.”
Eastman also said he altered the contract so the matter fell under Arkansas law, rather than Indiana law, which had been applied in the class action.
Eastman did not tell either his attorney or Biomet of these purported changes before signing and returning the contract, according to court papers.
The Indiana federal court threw out Eastman’s suit and he appealed.
The appeals panel noted some members of the class action could each collect as much as $200,000, but lesser amounts could be given as circumstances warranted.
Biomet said it gave $25,000 to Eastman, because he had no medical records covering the four-and-a-half years after he received his hip implant and the implant was never diagnosed as injuring him. Further, Eastman had been in a bar brawl the day before his hip device was surgically replaced, and medical records described him as a “horrible patient,” according to Biomet.
The appeals court was unimpressed with Eastman’s suit.
“Even if we accepted Eastman’s dubious argument that his changes rendered the release a nullity, he would have a potential breach-of-contract claim against Biomet for $200,000 only if the Master Settlement Agreement entitled him to that sum. It does not; rather, it provides a framework for the parties to negotiate the specific settlement payments that each plaintiff would receive,” the court said.
The court went on to say Eastman could have pursued mediation if he was unhappy with the $25,000 offer, but he needed to do that before he signed the agreement.
Even if Eastman had a right to $200,000, he could not ask the district court to unravel his settlement, because he did not return the money to Biomet, the court added.
“He cannot shirk his obligations under a contract that he wants to challenge while retaining its benefits,” said the appellate judges.
The appeals court said it decided the case without oral arguments, because the briefs and record were enough and oral arguments would be no help.
Biomet is represented by LaDue, Curran & Koehn, of South Bend, Ind.