Lana Horne sued Zimmer Biomet Spine, Inc., alleging that a Mobi-C artificial disc implanted in her cervical spine at the C5-C6 and C6-C7 levels in January 2019 was defective and slipped out of place, forcing a second surgery in June 2020 to remove it. Horne's manufacturing defect claim is limited to the device implanted at the C6-C7 level. She claims that device's serrated metal "teeth" — designed to grip bone and hold the implant in position — were not sharp enough, preventing the disc from adhering properly. She alleges the ordeal left her with chronic pain, depression, anxiety, and significant medical and wage losses.
The Mobi-C is an FDA-approved Class III device that received premarket approval for two-level disc replacement in August 2013. Because it is a PMA device, Horne must show not only a manufacturing defect but that the defect resulted from a violation of a specific PMA requirement — a demanding standard that shaped the entire summary judgment fight.
Judge Jacqueline Becerra of the Southern District of Florida denied both cross-motions on March 30, 2026. On the manufacturing defect question, Horne's biomechanical expert Troy Drewry concluded, based on a comparison of the device with Zimmer Biomet's design drawings, that the teeth were not sharp and that the device was not manufactured according to the design's measurements. Zimmer Biomet countered with manufacturing records and a declaration from its engineering manager, Guillaume Quetier, asserting the teeth were measured and found within PMA specifications. Becerra held that the direct conflict between those witnesses is a credibility determination for the jury, not the court.
The causation question was closer. Horne has no designated medical causation expert, and Becerra acknowledged that Drewry, a biomechanical engineer, cannot opine on medical causation. But the court declined to dismiss the claim as a matter of law, pointing to testimony from Horne's treating physician, Dr. Kuhns, that the device had to be removed because it had not properly adhered to her bone. Becerra held that the combination of Drewry's defect testimony — that dull teeth would prevent a device from adhering to bone — and Kuhns's clinical observation about why the device failed is sufficient to survive summary judgment, though the court described the evidence as perhaps not particularly strong. The court flagged that Horne will have no expert to rebut Zimmer Biomet's causation witness, and noted that the adequacy of her evidence may be revisited at the close of her case in chief.
Becerra also rejected Zimmer Biomet's argument that Texas's two-year statute of limitations should bar the claim. Horne, a Florida resident, received the implant in Florida. Her revision surgery took place in Texas only because she was visiting her son there — a fortuitous circumstance that, under Florida's most-significant-relationship choice-of-law test, did not shift the governing law to Texas. Florida's four-year limitations period applied, and the suit was timely.
The case, docketed as 23-cv-62102 in the Southern District of Florida, proceeds toward trial.