The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit has affirmed a district court judgment in favor of DePuy Orthopaedics and Johnson & Johnson companies in *King v. DePuy Orthopaedics, Inc.* (9th Cir. 2026), a medical device lawsuit that concluded with a jury verdict for the defendants.
Michael King and Deborah King appealed the final judgment entered by the U.S. District Court for the District of Arizona following a trial that ended with the jury finding in favor of DePuy Orthopaedics, Inc., DePuy Products Incorporated, DePuy Synthes Incorporated, Johnson & Johnson Inc., Johnson & Johnson Services, and Johnson & Johnson International.
The case centered on the Kings' challenge to a curative instruction issued by District Judge Susan M. Brnovich during trial. The appellants argued that the district court abused its discretion by issuing the curative instruction to the jury related to testimony from one of their witnesses, Dr. Mullen. The specific content of Dr. Mullen's testimony and the nature of the curative instruction were not detailed in the court's memorandum opinion.
The three-judge panel, consisting of Circuit Judges Collins, Mendoza, and Desai, heard oral arguments in Phoenix, Arizona on Sept. 15, 2025. The court issued its memorandum decision on Jan. 9, 2026, affirming the lower court's judgment. However, the decision was not unanimous, with Judge Collins filing a dissent.
The Ninth Circuit applied the standard of review for discovery sanctions, examining whether the district court abused its discretion and whether underlying findings of fact were clearly erroneous. The court cited *Jones v. Riot Hospitality Group LLC* (9th Cir. 2024) for the principle that courts review discovery sanctions for abuse of discretion and underlying factual findings for clear error. The opinion also noted that questions of law regarding whether correct legal standards were applied in imposing sanctions are reviewed de novo.
The case appears to involve allegations related to medical devices manufactured by the DePuy companies, which are subsidiaries of Johnson & Johnson. DePuy is a major manufacturer of orthopedic devices, including hip and knee implants. The company has faced numerous lawsuits over various medical devices in recent years, though the specific allegations in the King case were not detailed in the available court documents.
The fact that the case proceeded to trial and resulted in a jury verdict suggests the dispute involved significant factual questions that required resolution by a jury rather than summary judgment. The Kings' focus on appeal regarding the curative jury instruction indicates that procedural issues during trial, rather than substantive legal questions, formed the basis of their challenge to the verdict.
Curative instructions are typically issued by trial judges when testimony or evidence presented during trial may have been improper or potentially prejudicial. These instructions aim to remedy any potential harm by directing the jury to disregard certain evidence or providing clarification about how specific testimony should be considered. The Kings' argument that the district court abused its discretion in issuing such an instruction suggests they believed the instruction inappropriately influenced the jury's deliberations in favor of the defendants.
The memorandum nature of the Ninth Circuit's decision means it is not designated for publication and does not create binding precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3. This suggests the court viewed the case as presenting straightforward application of existing legal principles rather than novel legal questions requiring precedential guidance.
Judge Collins' dissent indicates disagreement within the panel regarding either the legal analysis or the application of the abuse of discretion standard to the district court's handling of the curative instruction. However, the content of the dissenting opinion was not included in the available court documents.
The affirmance means the jury verdict in favor of the DePuy defendants stands, and the Kings' claims have been resolved in favor of the medical device manufacturers. The case adds to the body of litigation involving DePuy products, though the specific outcome provides a defense victory in what appears to have been a closely contested trial.
The case demonstrates the challenges plaintiffs face in medical device litigation, where procedural issues during trial can become grounds for appeal even after adverse jury verdicts. The Ninth Circuit's affirmance suggests that district courts have substantial discretion in managing trial proceedings, including the issuance of curative instructions when appropriate.
For the DePuy defendants, the affirmance represents a complete victory at both the trial and appellate levels. The case serves as an example of successful defense of medical device litigation through the trial process, culminating in a jury verdict that withstood appellate review despite procedural challenges raised by the plaintiffs.