Rustico v. Intuitive Surgical: Why Filing Deadlines Can End a Robot-Injury Case

The Ninth Circuit did not reach the alleged robot malfunction because it found the claim time-barred.

What happened—and what the record establishes

Jean Rustico alleged that a da Vinci surgical robot malfunctioned during a 2012 procedure and caused internal injuries. The litigation turned not on whether the product was defective but on which state’s limitations period applied and whether a tolling agreement made the suit timely.

The Ninth Circuit affirmed summary judgment for Intuitive Surgical because California’s two-year personal-injury limitations period applied and the claims were untimely. The opinion illustrates a critical point: even a potentially serious technology-injury claim can be lost before defect evidence is evaluated.

Limitation periods vary by state and claim. Discovery rules, repose statutes, government-claim deadlines, minority, concealment, and written tolling agreements can alter the calculation. Online deadline calculators are not a substitute for jurisdiction-specific advice.

Questions the law must answer

• When did the claimant know or reasonably suspect wrongdoing?
• Which state’s law governs?
• Was any tolling agreement signed before the deadline expired?

Practical takeaways

• Do not wait for a recall or investigation to finish before asking about deadlines.
• A tolling agreement cannot always revive an already-expired claim.
• Keep medical, device, and communication records from the beginning.