If a hip implant, hernia mesh, heart device or other medical device failed and hurt you in St. Louis, you may have a Missouri product liability claim against the companies that designed, made or sold it, whether or not the device was recalled.
What to do now:
Chris Dixon was born and raised in St. Louis, and he founded our firm to take on the companies behind dangerous products, including the implants and surgical devices people trust with their health. He has recovered more than $60 million for people hurt by others’ choices. You pay nothing unless we win.
Call 314-208-2808 for a free case review.
Key Takeaways
On This Page:
A medical device claim often decides how a family pays for the next surgery, the months away from work and the care that follows. Implant failures rarely end with one operation. A failed hip or knee can mean revision surgery, a second procedure to remove or replace the original implant, followed by more rehab and sometimes permanent limits on how you move or work.
The most common way device claims weaken is not a missed deadline but a lost device. During revision surgery, the removed implant may go to the hospital’s pathology lab, into medical waste or back to the manufacturer. Once that happens, testing the actual unit may no longer be possible.
Deadlines matter too, and they don’t all match:
Engineering review and medical review also take time to line up before a lawsuit is filed. That’s why the work often starts well before any deadline is close.
Missouri treats evidence destruction narrowly. Spoliation means intentionally destroying or significantly altering evidence under circumstances showing fraud, deceit or bad faith (Brown v. Hamid, 856 S.W.2d 51 (Mo. banc 1993)). A device that’s simply lost doesn’t qualify, so a jury won’t automatically assume the worst. A written preservation demand helps show a company knew it had to keep the evidence.
This page focuses on medical devices. For the full picture of how Missouri handles injuries from defective products, see our St. Louis product liability lawyer page.
We use a six-step sequence for defective product claims, and it fits medical devices especially well. Each step answers a question that shapes the next decision, so we’re not guessing about defect theories before the evidence is secured. It doesn’t predict any result. It puts the work in a sensible order.
Have an implant card, a recall notice or a removal surgery on the calendar? Call 314-208-2808. We’re available 24/7, and we’ll talk through what to preserve before anything leaves the hospital.
A medical device can be defective in how it was made, in how it was designed, or in what the company told your doctor about its risks. In Missouri, as in most states, product claims can be brought on a strict liability theory, which focuses on the condition of the product rather than whether the company acted carelessly. The device still has to be shown to be defective, and that defect has to have caused the harm.
The table below shows how each theory works for implants and surgical devices. The examples are illustrative, not descriptions of any real product or case.
| Defect theory | What it means | Hypothetical device example | Evidence that usually matters |
|---|---|---|---|
| Manufacturing defect | One unit or batch departed from the intended design | An implant from one production lot with a machining flaw or contamination | The explanted device, lot records, laboratory testing |
| Design defect | The design itself carried an unreasonable risk of harm | Metal components that shed debris into surrounding tissue under normal use | Engineering analysis, safer alternative designs, prior similar failures |
| Warning defect | Instructions or warnings didn’t adequately describe a known risk | Labeling that understated a risk of fracture, migration or erosion | Labeling history, what the surgeon was told, internal risk assessments |
Device claims come up across many product types. Hip and knee replacements, hernia and pelvic mesh, spinal hardware, heart devices, blood clot filters, insulin pumps and breast implants are common examples. If your claim involves a hip replacement specifically, our page on defective hip implant claims goes deeper on that device.
Powered devices raise their own problems. A battery explosion or overheating in a rechargeable home medical unit can cause burns, and that failure can also be analyzed as a product defect.
But here’s what changes the analysis most. The question isn’t just “Is this device bad?” It’s “Did this unit fail in my body, and why?” That’s why the physical device carries so much weight.
No. In Missouri, a defective device claim doesn’t require a recall, and a recall doesn’t by itself prove that your device caused your injury. Many devices that cause harm are never recalled. And some recalled devices work fine in a particular patient.
A recall can still help. It may show the company knew about a risk, when it knew and what it said to doctors afterward. FDA recalls are grouped into classes, with Class I covering the most serious health risks, but the class label doesn’t decide your case.
Here’s where we’d push back on a common assumption. People often treat a recall letter as the strongest evidence they have. It usually isn’t. The stronger evidence is your own device, your operative report and the medical findings that link the failure to your symptoms. A recall without those is a news story. Those records without a recall can still be a case.
Can I still file if I was never notified of a recall?
Yes. Notice matters for what the company knew, not for whether you can bring a claim. Recall letters often go to surgeons and hospitals rather than patients, so many people learn about a recall from news reports or a follow-up visit.
Sometimes, depending on how the FDA reviewed the device. Federal preemption is a legal doctrine that can bar state-law claims when they would impose requirements different from, or in addition to, federal rules. It’s one of the defenses device manufacturers raise most often, and it can narrow which theories go forward.
Many devices reach the market through 510(k) clearance, a process where the manufacturer shows the FDA that a device is substantially equivalent to one already sold. Preemption defenses are generally narrower for these devices.
The highest-risk devices usually go through premarket approval, a more demanding FDA review. Claims involving those devices can face stronger preemption arguments. Claims based on a company’s failure to follow the FDA’s own requirements may still go forward. Sorting this out early is one reason we identify the exact model before deciding which defect theories to pursue.
The learned intermediary doctrine is a rule that may focus a manufacturer’s warning duty on the prescribing doctor rather than the patient, because the doctor decides whether the device is right for you. Under it, the key question in a warning case often becomes what your surgeon was told and whether a better warning would have changed the decision.
The same doctrine comes up in prescription medication cases. If a drug rather than a device caused your injury, our page on defective drug claims explains how those cases work.
A device injury can involve a defective product, a medical provider’s error, or both, and the deadlines for each are very different. This is where many people lose time without realizing it. A failed implant gets blamed on the manufacturer, while a positioning or sizing error by the surgeon goes unexamined until the shorter malpractice deadline has passed.
| Question | Product liability claim | Medical malpractice claim |
|---|---|---|
| Who is usually named | Manufacturer, component maker, distributor or seller | Surgeon, hospital or other health care provider |
| What must be shown | The device was defective and the defect caused the injury | The provider fell below the accepted standard of care and caused harm |
| General filing deadline | 5 years under § 516.120 (3 years under § 537.100 if the patient died) | 2 years under § 516.105, with a 10-year statute of repose and statutory exceptions |
| Core evidence | Explanted device, lot and serial numbers, engineering testing | Operative notes, medical charts, expert review of the care provided |
| Hypothetical example | An implant fractures under normal activity | A properly made implant is placed in the wrong position |
Manufacturers often argue that surgical technique, not the device, caused the failure. Surgeons sometimes point the other way. When both explanations are possible, the evidence has to be reviewed with both claims in mind from the start.
If there’s any chance a provider made an error, the two-year malpractice clock under § 516.105 should drive your timeline, not the five-year product deadline. For claims against doctors and hospitals, see our St. Louis medical malpractice lawyer page.
In Missouri, most personal injury claims from a defective medical device must be filed within five years under Mo. Rev. Stat. § 516.120, but a wrongful death claim has three years and a malpractice claim against a provider generally has two. When the clock starts can be disputed in device cases, because some injuries develop slowly and their cause isn’t obvious right away.
| Claim type | Time limit | Statute | What can change it |
|---|---|---|---|
| Injury from a defective device | 5 years | Mo. Rev. Stat. § 516.120 | The start date can be contested when harm appeared gradually |
| Death caused by a defective device | 3 years | Mo. Rev. Stat. § 537.100 | Who may file is set by the family classes in § 537.080 |
| Claim against a doctor or hospital | 2 years, 10-year repose | Mo. Rev. Stat. § 516.105 | The statute contains exceptions that should be confirmed early |
Under RSMo § 537.080, Missouri sets an order of family members who may bring a death claim:
Families facing this can read more on our St. Louis wrongful death lawyer page.
Missouri law allows people hurt by defective devices to seek both economic losses, like medical bills and lost wages, and non-economic losses, like pain and loss of enjoyment of life. What a specific claim may be worth depends on the injury, the medical evidence and the strength of the defect and causation proof. No honest lawyer can give you a number before reviewing those.
Missouri also places limits on punitive damages in many cases under Mo. Rev. Stat. § 510.265. For a broader look at how injury claims are valued, see what your St. Louis injury case may be worth.
Manufacturers sometimes argue that a patient ignored activity restrictions or skipped follow-up care. Under RSMo § 537.765, Missouri applies pure comparative fault to product liability claims. The jury finds your total damages and each party’s percentage of fault, and the court then reduces your award by your percentage. Even a substantial share of fault doesn’t bar recovery entirely.
Not every insurer that paid your bills can be repaid. Missouri doesn’t let personal injury claims be assigned, so privately insured health plans generally can’t enforce reimbursement against a Missouri injury recovery. Medicare, MO HealthNet under § 208.215, workers’ compensation insurers, self-funded employer plans governed by ERISA and federal-employee plans can. Those claims should be addressed before any settlement is finalized.
Under Mo. Rev. Stat. § 508.010.4, when a plaintiff was first injured in Missouri, a tort suit must be filed in the county where that first injury happened, regardless of where the companies are based. In a device case, deciding where someone was “first injured” isn’t always simple. It may be where the implant surgery happened or where the device later failed, and that question can be argued.
Depending on where the first injury occurred, a St. Louis-area device case may be filed in:
Because device manufacturers are often based in other states, a defendant may move a case to federal court. In this region, that’s the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri, at the Thomas F. Eagleton U.S. Courthouse. Some device litigation is also coordinated nationally, and whether that applies to your device has to be checked case by case. Once a case is filed, your court papers will show the assigned court and division. You can also look up filed cases through Missouri Courts.
Implant and revision surgeries in this area happen at hospitals such as Barnes-Jewish Hospital, Mercy Hospital St. Louis, SSM Health Saint Louis University Hospital and Missouri Baptist Medical Center. The operative report from that surgery usually lists the device’s manufacturer, model and lot number. The pathology record may show where an explanted device went. We request both early, because they’re often the first proof of exactly which product was in your body.
Chris Dixon is admitted in both Missouri and Illinois. That matters for Metro East families whose surgery happened on one side of the river while they live on the other.
Every client at our firm works directly with the attorney handling their case, not a case manager or call center. We’re selective about the cases we take, which lets us give each one personal attention.
Christopher R. Dixon founded The Dixon Injury Firm and has practiced since 2007. During law school he gained courtroom experience working with the St. Louis City Circuit Attorney’s Office, and he prepares cases as though they’ll go before a jury. His past results include a $12,000,000 wrongful death recovery for the family of a young girl killed in a car accident. Those were different case types, and past results don’t predict future outcomes.
Chris’s recognitions include The Best Lawyers in America® 2027 — Personal Injury Litigation – Plaintiffs, Super Lawyers®, Top 100 Trial Lawyers from The National Trial Lawyers, and Lifetime Membership in the Million Dollar Advocates Forum. You can read more on Chris Dixon’s attorney profile.
Our team also includes Michael A. Langella, who brings insight from his background defending insurance companies and is licensed in Missouri and Illinois.
You owe no attorney fee unless we recover money for you. Device cases can involve expert and testing costs, so ask us how case expenses are handled before you sign anything. We’d rather you understand the arrangement fully up front.
The information on this page is for general informational purposes and does not constitute legal advice. Every case is different, and past results do not guarantee future outcomes. Please consult a qualified attorney about your specific situation.
If your device has failed or a removal surgery is scheduled, the explanted device and your operative records are what we’ll want to protect first. Deadlines matter too: two years for a possible malpractice claim, three years after a death and five years for most injury claims under Missouri law. Reaching out early gives the evidence and expert review time to come together.
We serve St. Louis, Clayton, Florissant and St. Charles County, and we’re available 24/7. Call 314-208-2808 for a free case review with The Dixon Injury Firm.
You may, if the device was defective and that defect caused your injury. In Missouri, that usually means showing a manufacturing, design or warning defect, then using medical and engineering evidence to connect it to your harm. A failure alone doesn’t prove a defect, because infection, injury or surgical placement can also cause problems. The removed device and your operative records are usually where the answer starts.
Missouri generally allows five years for personal injury claims under Mo. Rev. Stat. § 516.120 and three years for wrongful death claims under § 537.100. If a doctor or hospital may share responsibility, a malpractice claim generally has two years under § 516.105, with a 10-year statute of repose and certain exceptions. The start date can be disputed when an injury develops slowly, so it’s safest to confirm your deadline early.
You owe no attorney fee unless we recover money for you. Device cases can involve costs for expert review and laboratory testing, which are separate from attorney fees. Ask us how those expenses are handled so you understand the full arrangement before you decide.
No one can responsibly put a number on it before reviewing the evidence. Value in Missouri depends on the severity of your injury, the need for revision surgery or future care, lost income, and how strong the defect and causation proof is. Comparative fault under § 537.765 can reduce an award, and Medicare or Medicaid reimbursement rights can affect what you keep.
No. Missouri doesn’t require a recall to bring a defective product claim, and a recall doesn’t automatically prove your device caused your injury. A recall can help show what the company knew and when, but your own device and medical records usually carry more weight.
You may still have a claim. The strategy shifts to photographs, implant records, operative reports, identical exemplar devices and a formal demand that the manufacturer preserve the unit. Under Missouri law, a jury may infer the evidence was harmful only if it was destroyed or significantly altered in bad faith, so a written preservation demand matters.
Missouri applies pure comparative fault to product liability claims under § 537.765. The jury assigns percentages of fault, and the court reduces your award by your share, but your fault doesn’t bar recovery. Manufacturers do raise misuse arguments, so evidence of how you actually used the device matters.
Not before you understand your full losses, including future surgeries and lost earning capacity. An early offer may come before the cause of the failure or your long-term prognosis is clear. Our page on whether to accept the insurance company’s first offer explains the factors to weigh.
Timing depends on how quickly the device can be tested, how complex the causation questions are, whether the case is in state or federal court, and whether coordinated litigation is involved. Expert review and discovery of the company’s testing records can take substantial time. We’ll explain the factors affecting your case rather than guess at a date.
Most civil injury claims resolve before trial, but some go to verdict. Chris Dixon prepares cases as though they’ll go before a jury, because that preparation shapes how the other side evaluates the claim. Whether to settle or try a case is always your decision.
Many device manufacturers carry product liability insurance, but coverage and solvency vary. When the maker is unavailable, other companies in the chain, such as a component maker or distributor, may be responsible under Missouri law, depending on their roles. Bankruptcy can also create a separate claims process with its own deadlines.
Most people use health insurance, Medicare or MO HealthNet while the claim moves forward. Under Missouri law, ordinary private health insurers generally can’t enforce reimbursement from an injury recovery. Medicare, MO HealthNet, workers’ compensation insurers and self-funded ERISA or federal-employee plans can. Those claims are resolved before any settlement funds are paid out.
Yes, if the evidence supports both claims. A product claim targets the device’s defect, while a malpractice claim targets a provider’s care, and each has its own proof and deadline. Because the malpractice deadline is generally two years under § 516.105, it often sets the pace when both are possible.
Many personal injury law factories get as many clients in the door as possible, hoping one will be the jackpot. Not us. At The Dixon Injury Firm, we’re highly selective about our cases because we devote considerable time and attention to each client.
