Franklin v. Intuitive Surgical: A Current Robotic-Surgery Product Case

A 2025 order allowed Mississippi product-liability allegations involving a robotic surgical device to proceed.

What happened—and what the record establishes

Tina Franklin and her husband sued Intuitive Surgical entities over injuries allegedly sustained during a February 2021 procedure involving robotic surgical devices and instruments. The plaintiffs asserted claims under the Mississippi Products Liability Act.

In March 2025, the federal court denied the defendants’ motion to dismiss, concluding that the complaint adequately pleaded claims at that stage. The order did not decide that the device was defective, that warnings were inadequate, or that the defendants caused the injuries. Those issues require evidence.

The decision is useful because medical-device cases can involve both product and medical-negligence questions. Surgeons, hospitals, manufacturers, instrument suppliers, and maintenance records may all matter. Federal preemption and the device’s regulatory status can also affect available claims.

Questions the law must answer

• Was there a manufacturing, design, or warning defect?
• Did the physician receive adequate warnings and training?
• What do device logs and operative records show?

Practical takeaways

• A denied dismissal motion means only that pleaded claims may continue.
• Request the full medical chart and operative report promptly.
• Do not let a device or instrument be destroyed before preservation issues are addressed.