# Charles McCorvey v. Baxter Healthcare Corp.

> Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · July 24, 2002 · 298 F.3d 1253

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9415681

## Case

- **Full name:** Charles McCORVEY, Plaintiff-Appellant, Schenell McCorvey, Plaintiff, v. BAXTER HEALTHCARE CORP., Defendant-Cross-Claimant-Appellee, C.R. Bard, Inc., Defendant-Cross-Claimant-Appellee
- **Court:** Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit
- **Decided:** July 24, 2002
- **Citations:** 298 F.3d 1253; 59 Fed. R. Serv. 3d 856; 2002 U.S. App. LEXIS 15460; 2002 WL 1669832
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Dissent by Hill
- **Judges:** Carnes, Hill, Kravitch
- **Cited by:** 269 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9415681

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- holding that “[rjulings on admissibility under Daubert inherently require the trial court to conduct an exacting analysis of the proffered expert’s methodology”
- holding that “[r]ulings on admissibility under Daubert inherently require the trial court to conduct an exacting analysis of the proffered expert’s methodology”
- rejecting argument expert testimony should have been tested by cross-examination and weighed by jury, where trial court properly determined testimony did not meet requirements of Rule 702 and accompanying case law

## Opinion text

HILL, Circuit Judge,
dissenting:
As I read the record, the following facts are clear:
1. A catheter such as the one in this case contains a balloon-like element.
2. The catheter must be inflated with sterile solution to remain properly positioned in the patient’s body.
3. The written instructions of the manufacturer state that the 30 cc catheter is designed to be inflated by the introduction of no more than 36 cc’s of solution.
4. It is my experience from childhood that balloons will inherently burst if overinflated.
5. Here all agree that the doctor ignored the manufacturer’s instructions. He inserted 50 cc’s of solution into the 30 cc catheter, observing that folks did that all the time.
6. The balloon-like element of the catheter, thus overinflated, burst.
The majority interprets Florida products liability tort law to hold that this set of facts creates- an inference that the catheter, with its 30 cc balloon, was defective because it fractured when overinflated by 66% of its stated capacity. The inference created by this interpretation is that, if the balloon burst when 166% of the amount of liquid it was capable of receiving was forced into it, then it also would have burst had the doctor inserted 100%, or the correct amount!
I am not willing to conclude that this inference, which, to me, appears illogical, is correct under Florida law unless the *1261 Supreme Court of the State of Florida tells me that it is. I would certify this question.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9415681. Public record. Not legal advice.