Monday, January 21, 2008

Jessen v. Mentor Corp. (Cal. Ct. App. - Jan. 16, 2008)

And, equally tangentially, on the lighter side of things, read this opinion. Which is yet another of the everyday cases you read involving a deformed testicular prothesis. Dime a dozen, right?

P.S. - Do you think Justice Perluss recognized the potential of footnote two, which says "there is no significant difference in appearance or weight between an unfilled and filled implant, especially in the small size Jessen received" (emphasis added)? I mean, sure, I know we're talking about a prothesis here. But, personally, I'd strongly prefer not to have a reference to my "small size" in any of the affected area in question -- especially in a published opinion!