Jones v. 3M Company
- Joan Ericksen
- 0:23-cv-01425
- U.S. District Court · District of Minnesota
- 9
In Jones v. 3M Company, Judge Ericksen granted summary judgment in favor of 3M Company and Arizant Healthcare, Inc., dismissing Carl Jones's product liability lawsuit with prejudice because his claims were filed too late under Louisiana's one-year deadline for personal injury lawsuits.
Plaintiffs in the Bair Hugger MDL litigation — particularly those whose claims may be subject to Louisiana's one-year prescriptive period — as well as individuals who were diagnosed with post-surgical infections and delayed filing suit, who may face similar timeliness challenges. Also relevant to defendants in product liability cases involving the Bair Hugger device.
What happened
In Jones v. 3M Company, Carl Jones of Louisiana sued 3M Company and Arizant Healthcare, Inc. in May 2023, claiming that a medical warming device called the Bair Hugger — used during his December 2020 hip surgery — caused a serious joint infection that required multiple revision surgeries. He brought nearly 20 legal claims, including negligence, defective product design, failure to warn, fraud, and warranty violations. The case is part of a larger multi-district litigation (a consolidated federal proceeding combining many similar cases) involving the Bair Hugger device.
The central dispute was whether Jones filed his lawsuit on time. Under Louisiana law, personal injury claims must generally be filed within one year of when the injury occurs or becomes reasonably knowable. Jones argued he did not know the Bair Hugger had been used in his surgery until his medical records were reviewed in February 2024, which would have made his May 2023 filing timely. Defendants countered that Jones was diagnosed with a hip infection in August 2021 — more than a year before he filed — and that he had already seen a television commercial about the Bair Hugger that led him to hire his attorneys, and that his own attorneys had identified him in a list of unfiled cases in May 2022.
Judge Ericksen ruled that the one-year clock started running well before Jones filed his lawsuit in May 2023. The court found that by the time Jones was diagnosed with a joint infection, underwent multiple surgeries, saw a television commercial connecting the Bair Hugger to infections, and retained attorneys, he had more than enough information to trigger his obligation to investigate and file a claim. The court rejected his argument that the clock could not start until he personally reviewed his medical records, noting that he could have requested those records at any time. As a result, Judge Ericksen granted summary judgment for the defendants, dismissed the case with prejudice (meaning Jones cannot refile it), and denied as moot the motion to exclude his expert witness since the case was already resolved on timeliness grounds.
The detailed version
- Jones v. 3M Company, MDL No. 15-2666 (JNE/DTS), Case No. 23-cv-1425
- Joan N. Ericksen, United States District Judge
- September 11, 2025
Background Carl Jones, a Louisiana resident, underwent left hip surgery in December 2020 at University Medical Center New Orleans, during which the Bair Hugger Forced Air Warming system was allegedly used. He claims contaminants introduced through the Bair Hugger caused a periprosthetic joint infection (an infection around an implanted joint prosthesis), requiring multiple subsequent surgeries: removal of the hip prosthesis and placement of an antibiotic spacer (September 2021), removal of hardware and repeat spacer placement with irrigation and debridement (October 2021), and a total hip arthroplasty revision during which he also suffered an iatrogenic femoral fracture (a fracture caused by the surgical procedure itself) (December 2021).
In August 2021, Jones was diagnosed by his surgeon with a presumptive left hip infection after presenting with hip pain complaints. Jones filed suit in May 2023 against 3M Company and Arizant Healthcare, Inc. (collectively, Defendants), asserting approximately 19 claims including negligence, strict liability for failure to warn and defective design, breach of express and implied warranty, violations of multiple Minnesota and Louisiana consumer protection statutes, negligent and fraudulent misrepresentation, fraudulent concealment, unjust enrichment, punitive damages, common law fraud, constructive fraud, gross negligence, and negligent infliction of emotional distress. The case was filed into the Bair Hugger multi-district litigation (MDL) pending in the District of Minnesota.
Motions Before the Court Defendants moved for summary judgment and separately moved to exclude the opinions and testimony of Jones's expert, Dr. Theodoros Kelesidis.
Summary Judgment Analysis
Summary judgment is appropriate under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56(a) when there is no genuine dispute as to any material fact and the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. The court must view disputed facts in the light most favorable to the non-moving party (here, Jones).
Dismissal of Non-LPLA Claims: Jones himself acknowledged in his response brief that his non-Louisiana Product Liability Act (LPLA) claims "are abrogated or not allowed" under Louisiana law. The court accepted this concession and dismissed those claims, leaving only his LPLA claims and punitive damages for consideration. The court cited authority establishing that punitive damages are not an independent cause of action under either Louisiana or Minnesota law.
Timeliness — Louisiana's One-Year Prescriptive Period: The court applied Louisiana Civil Code Article 3492 (in effect at the time of Jones's surgery; a new two-year period under Article 3493.1 applies only to actions arising after July 1, 2024), which requires that personal injury ("delictual") claims be brought within one year of when the injury or damage is sustained. Damage accrues when it "has manifested itself with sufficient certainty to support accrual of a cause of action."
Jones invoked the equitable tolling doctrine known as contra non valentem — a Louisiana doctrine meaning that the prescriptive period does not run against a person who is unable to bring an action. The specific sub-category at issue was the "discovery rule," which tolls (pauses) the prescriptive period when the cause of action is not known or reasonably knowable by the plaintiff. Critically, under Louisiana law, actual knowledge is not required; constructive knowledge (i.e., facts that would put a reasonable person on notice to investigate) is sufficient to start the clock. Once a plaintiff suspects something is wrong, he has a duty to investigate.
Defendants' Position: Jones's claims were time-barred on their face because he did not file within one year of August 16, 2021, when he was diagnosed with a presumptive left hip infection.
Jones's Position: He had no constructive or actual knowledge that the Bair Hugger was used in his surgery until February 15, 2024, when his medical records were reviewed, so the prescriptive period did not begin to run until that date.
Factual Record on Notice: The court identified the following undisputed facts relevant to the timeliness question: - August 2021: Jones diagnosed with presumptive hip infection; revision surgeries recommended and performed (September, October, December 2021). - Jones saw a television commercial about the Bair Hugger, which he described as linking the device to infections similar to his own experience; he called the number on the commercial and retained his current attorneys. He testified he saw the commercial "a few years ago" and admitted he "probably" called his attorneys before his third surgery (suggesting sometime in late 2021). - May 20, 2022: Jones's attorneys identified him in a list of unfiled actions shared with Defendants — nearly one year before he filed suit. - March 2022: Jones stated in his original fact sheet (served two months after filing) that he first learned the Bair Hugger was used in his surgery from his medical records in March 2022. - November 2023 / February 2024: Medical records printed; Jones stated in an amended fact sheet (February 2024) that he first discovered the Bair Hugger was used during surgery on February 15, 2024. (The court noted a discrepancy in the exhibit Jones cited to support this claim, but assumed without deciding that the amended fact sheet was accurate.) - Jones filed suit on May 18, 2023.
Ruling on Timeliness: Viewing the record in the light most favorable to Jones, the court concluded that contra non valentem did not save his claims. By August 2021 at the latest, Jones had suffered a diagnosed periprosthetic joint infection following surgery, undergone multiple revision surgeries, seen a television commercial connecting the Bair Hugger to infections like his, retained attorneys, and had medical records printed. His attorneys had identified him as a potential claimant in May 2022. The court held that Jones had sufficient notice to trigger a duty to investigate well before May 2023 — and that the prescriptive period did not wait for him to personally review his medical records. The court emphasized that under Louisiana law, "[p]laintiffs are not entitled to wait to sue until they are certain of what and/or who caused their injury," quoting In re Taxotere (Docetaxel) Prods. Liab. Litig., 995 F.3d 384 (5th Cir. 2021). Accordingly, the court found Jones's action untimely and did not reach Defendants' other summary judgment arguments.
Motion to Exclude Expert Because the court granted summary judgment on timeliness grounds, it denied as moot Defendants' motion to exclude the opinions and testimony of Jones's expert, Dr. Theodoros Kelesidis.
Disposition - Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment [Docket No. 63]: GRANTED. - Defendants' Motion to Exclude the Opinions and Testimony of Plaintiff's Expert Dr. Theodoros Kelesidis [Docket No. 70]: DENIED as moot. - This action is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE (Jones may not refile this case).
Reviewer note from the AI+
Read the full 9-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.