Trantafello v. Medical Center of Tarzana

In Trantafello v. Medical Center of Tarzana (1986) 182 Cal. App. 3d 315, the court found the foreign body exception inapplicable to acrylic that had been intentionally implanted in the plaintiff during disk surgery for the therapeutic purpose of maintaining a space between the vertebrae. The court concluded that while the acrylic may not have had a therapeutic effect (it allegedly was the cause of the plaintiff's injuries), the evidence established that it still had a therapeutic purpose, i.e., the doctor who implanted it intended that the acrylic maintain the space between the vertebrae. (Ibid.) Thus, the fact that the acrylic did not act as intended did not change the fact that the doctor who implanted it intended it to perform a therapeutic purpose.