Nancy Hay-Rewalt v. Boston Scientific Corporation

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: 2:12-cv-09912 Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [999705905].. [15-1443]

Appeal: 15-1443

Doc: 25

Filed: 11/24/2015

Pg: 1 of 3

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 15-1443

NANCY HAY-REWALT; RONALD HAY-REWALT,
Plaintiffs - Appellants,
v.
BOSTON SCIENTIFIC CORPORATION,
Defendant - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern
District of West Virginia, at Charleston.
Joseph R. Goodwin,
District Judge. (2:12-cv-09912)

Submitted:

October 29, 2015

Decided:

November 24, 2015

Before SHEDD and DIAZ, Circuit Judges, and DAVIS, Senior Circuit
Judge.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

A. Craig Eiland, Bret D. Stanley, THE LAW OFFICES OF A. CRAIG
EILAND, PC, Galveston, Texas, for Appellants. Daniel B. Rogers,
SHOOK, HARDY & BACON L.L.P., Miami, Florida; Michael Bonasso,
FLAHERTY SENSABAUGH & BONASSO PLLC, Charleston, West Virginia,
Lindsey M. Saad, FLAHERTY SENSABAUGH & BONASSO PLLC, Morgantown,
West Virginia, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 15-1443

Doc: 25

Filed: 11/24/2015

Pg: 2 of 3

PER CURIAM:
Nancy
order

and

Ronald

dismissing

Hay-Rewalt

their

lawsuit,

appeal
which

the

was

district

based

on

court’s
injuries

sustained from the implantation of transvaginal surgical mesh.
This case is one of many referred by a Judicial Panel on MultiDistrict Litigation to the Southern District of West Virginia.
Applying Michigan law, the district court granted Defendant’s
motion for summary judgment on the ground that the Hay-Rewalts’
action was barred by the statute of limitations.
We review a district court’s grant of summary judgment de
novo, “viewing all facts and reasonable inferences therefrom in
the light most favorable to the nonmoving party.”

Smith v.

Gilchrist, 749 F.3d 302, 307 (4th Cir. 2014) (internal quotation
marks omitted).

Summary judgment is appropriate only when there

is no genuine issue of material fact and the movant is entitled
to

judgment

as

a

matter

of

law.

Seremeth

v.

Bd.

of

Comm’rs Frederick Cnty., 673 F.3d 333, 336 (4th Cir. 2012).

Cnty.
The

relevant inquiry on summary judgment is “whether the evidence
presents a sufficient disagreement to require submission to a
jury or whether it is so one-sided that one party must prevail
as a matter of law.”

Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S.

242, 251-52 (1986).

An otherwise properly supported summary

judgment motion will not be defeated by the existence of some
factual dispute, however; only disputes over facts that might
2

Appeal: 15-1443

Doc: 25

Filed: 11/24/2015

Pg: 3 of 3

affect the outcome of the suit under the governing law will
properly preclude the entry of summary judgment.

Id. at 248.

Indeed, to withstand a summary judgment motion, the non-moving
party must produce competent evidence sufficient to reveal the
existence of a genuine issue of material fact for trial.

Fed.

R. Civ. P. 56(c)(1).
We have thoroughly reviewed the district court’s order, the
parties’

briefs,

and

the

materials

submitted

on

appeal.

We

conclude that the district court did not err in finding the HayRewalts’ action barred under Michigan’s statute of limitations.
Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district
court.

Hay-Rewalt v. Boston Scientific Corp., No. 2:12-cv-09912

(S.D. W. Va. Mar. 26, 2015).

We dispense with oral argument

because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented
in the materials before this court and argument would not aid
the decisional process.
AFFIRMED

3