With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". chondrolysis, and as such, the manufacturer had a duty to warn of that risk. Id. at 570-71. The Sixth Circuit affirmed the lower court’s decision, wherein it dismissed the case at the summary judgment stage based on the court’s finding that the risk of chondrolysis was not knowable at the time of plaintiffs surgery. Id. at 577. After analyzing the medical literature plaintiff presented, the Sixth Circuit held: When all is said and done, not one of Rodriguez’s thirteen articles shows that medical experts understood in 2004 that infusing a joint with bupivacaine for two days could cause irreversible cartilage damage. [The manufacturer] had no duty to understand what the relevant medical literature did not. Id. at 572 ; see also, Mack v. Stryker, 893 F.Supp.2d 976, 986-88 (D.Minn.2012) (<HOLDING>). In sum, the Sixth Circuit concluded that none

A: holding that the medical community did not draw a connection between pain pumps and chondrolysis or any similar injury suffered until 2005
B: holding that to show a causal connection the plaintiff must demonstrate a relationship between the misconduct and the plaintiffs injury
C: holding that  666 does not require any connection between the misconduct and federal funds
D: holding that there must be a causal connection between the advertising activity and the injury alleged in the underlying complaint
A.