Sharrene Timothy v. Boston Scientific Corporation
Filing
UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: 2:12-cv-05950 Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [999988474].. [15-1454]
Appeal: 15-1454
Doc: 36
Filed: 12/16/2016
Pg: 1 of 10
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 15-1454
SHARRENE TIMOTHY; THOMAS TIMOTHY,
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-05950)
ARGUED:
October 26, 2016
Decided:
December 16, 2016
Before THACKER, and HARRIS, Circuit Judges, and Gerald Bruce
LEE, United States District Judge for the Eastern District of
Virginia, sitting by designation.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
ARGUED: Jessica Ann Kasischke, FLEMING, NOLEN & JEZ, L.L.P.,
Houston, Texas, for Appellants.
Daniel Brandon Rogers, SHOOK,
HARDY & BACON L.L.P., Miami, Florida, for Appellee.
ON BRIEF:
Karen
Beyea-Schroeder, Sylvia
Davidow,
Kelsey
L.
Stokes,
FLEMING, NOLEN & JEZ, L.L.P., Houston, Texas, for Appellants.
Michael Bonasso, Charleston, West Virginia, Lindsey M. Saad,
FLAHERTY SENSABAUGH & BONASSO PLLC, Morgantown, West Virginia,
for Appellee.
Appeal: 15-1454
Doc: 36
Filed: 12/16/2016
Pg: 2 of 10
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2
Appeal: 15-1454
Doc: 36
Filed: 12/16/2016
Pg: 3 of 10
PER CURIAM:
Sharrene Timothy and Thomas Timothy, 1 Utah residents,
(collectively,
“Appellants”)
Scientific
Corporation
Appellee’s
transvaginal
filed
(“Appellee”)
mesh
suit
against
alleging
products.
The
Boston
defects
district
in
court
granted summary judgment in favor of Appellee, concluding that
Appellants’
claims
are
barred
by
Utah’s
two
limitations for product liability actions.
year
statute
of
For the following
reasons, we affirm.
I.
On June 30, 2009, Dr. Steven Johnson implanted Mrs.
Timothy with Boston Scientific’s transvaginal mesh products to
treat stress urinary incontinence.
Johnson
advised
Mrs.
Timothy
Prior to the surgery, Dr.
that
he
would
use
Boston
Scientific’s products, informed her of the “pros, cons, risks,
and benefits of mesh,” and warned of potential side effects such
as erosion.
J.A. 462; see id. at 134, 473. 2
1
Thomas Timothy’s claims are derivative of his wife’s, and
we refer only to Sharrene Timothy unless otherwise noted.
Because we find Mrs. Timothy’s claims are time-barred, Mr.
Timothy’s suit must also be dismissed as it is “subject to the
same
defenses,
limitations,
immunities,
and
provisions
applicable to the claims of the injured person.”
Utah Code
§ 30-2-11(4)(b).
2
Citations to the “J.A.” refer to the Joint Appendix filed
by the parties in this appeal.
3
Appeal: 15-1454
Doc: 36
Filed: 12/16/2016
Pg: 4 of 10
According to Mrs. Timothy, approximately six or seven
months later, she began experiencing significant pelvic pain,
dyspareunia, blood in her urine, and a scratching sensation in
her vagina.
Because of her problems, on April 19, 2010, Mrs.
Timothy went to see Dr. Johnson.
Dr. Johnson examined Mrs.
Timothy and found mesh erosion and told her he could “feel the
mesh.”
J.A. 138.
Dr. Johnson subsequently performed a second
surgery to repair the mesh.
However, according to Appellants,
Mrs. Timothy continued to suffer pain, an itching sensation in
her vagina, infections, urinary incontinence, and dyspareunia.
Then,
in
late
2011,
Mrs.
Timothy
saw
an
attorney
television advertisement about possible complications resulting
from transvaginal surgical mesh.
After contacting one of the
law firms advertising their services, on September 26, 2012 -more than three years after Mrs. Timothy’s original surgery -Appellants filed action against Appellee as part of the MultiDistrict Litigation (“MDL”) in the Southern District of West
Virginia
claiming
Following
injuries
discovery,
from
Appellee
allegedly
moved
for
defective
summary
mesh.
judgment,
arguing Mrs. Timothy’s claim accrued more than two years prior
to her filing.
concluding
that
The district court granted summary judgment,
Appellants’
claim
was
barred
by
Utah’s
applicable two year statute of limitations for product defect
claims.
Appellants timely appealed.
4
Appeal: 15-1454
Doc: 36
Filed: 12/16/2016
Pg: 5 of 10
II.
We review de novo a district court’s grant of summary
judgment.
See RLM Commc’ns, Inc. v. Tuschen, 831 F.3d 190, 195
(4th Cir. 2016).
III.
A.
Utah’s choice of law principles control because the
actions forming the basis of the lawsuit occurred there.
See In
re Temporomandibular Joint (TMJ) Implants Prod. Liab. Litig., 97
F.3d 1050, 1055 (8th Cir. 1996).
Utah law applies the most
significant relationship test to determine the applicable law.
See Waddoups v. Amalgamated Sugar Co., 54 P.3d 1054, 1060 (Utah
2002)
(“Having
analysis,
that
concluded,
for
plaintiffs’
purposes
claims
of
sound
the
in
choice
tort,
of
we
law
next
determine which state ‘has the most significant relationship to
the occurrence and the parties.’”) (quoting Restatement (Second)
Conflict of Laws § 145(1) (1971)).
Because the surgery and
injury occurred in Utah, we find Utah has the most significant
relationship and therefore apply Utah’s substantive law.
The Utah Products Liability Act (“UPLA”) creates a two
year statute of limitations:
A civil action under this part shall be
brought within two years from the time the
individual who would be the claimant in the
5
Appeal: 15-1454
Doc: 36
Filed: 12/16/2016
Pg: 6 of 10
action discovered, or in the exercise of due
diligence should have discovered, both the
harm and its cause.
Utah Code § 78B-6-706 (2008).
Under Utah law, “all that is required to trigger the
statute
of
plaintiffs
limitations
on
notice
is
to
doubts or questions.”
make
further,
“everything
to
the
which
further
information
inquiry
if
to
they
put
harbor
Macris v. Sculptured Software, Inc., 24
P.3d 984, 990 (Utah 2001).
inquire
sufficient
Once a person is put on notice to
person
such
is
imputed
inquiry
might
with
have
knowledge
led.”
of
Pioneer
Builders Co. of Nev. v. K D A Corp., 292 P.3d 672, 679 (Utah
2012).
A claim accrues when a person knows or should know all
of the information necessary to state her claim for relief.
See
Bank One Utah, N.A. v. W. Jordan City, 54 P.3d 135, 137-38 (Utah
Ct. App. 2002).
For
a
products
liability
action,
the
claim
accrues
when a person knows or should know: (1) the injury; (2) the
identity of the maker of the allegedly defective product; and
(3)
a
possible
manufacturer.
causal
relation
between
the
product
and
the
See Aragon v. Clover Club Foods Co., 857 P.2d
250, 252-53 (Utah Ct. App. 1993).
Appellants argue that the causal relationship required
for a claim to accrue is that the product be the cause-in-fact
of
an
injury.
Even
assuming
their
6
argument
is
correct,
we
Appeal: 15-1454
Doc: 36
Filed: 12/16/2016
Pg: 7 of 10
conclude that Appellants’ claims accrued on April 19, 2010, and
are therefore barred by the applicable statute of limitations. 3
B.
Even
before
her
April
19,
2010
doctor
visit,
Mrs.
Timothy was on notice of her injury and the identity of the
product manufacturer.
Before surgery, Dr. Johnson told Mrs.
Timothy he was using products manufactured by Boston Scientific
in the surgery and warned her of possible erosion.
to
the
April
19,
2010
visit,
Mrs.
Timothy
had
And, prior
experienced
bleeding, pain, and an itching sensation, which constituted her
injury, for at least three months.
Moreover, during the visit, Dr. Johnson put her on
notice of the possible causal connection.
Specifically, Dr.
Johnson told Mrs. Timothy he could “feel the mesh” and that the
mesh “was causing the bleeding.”
J.A. 139 (emphasis supplied).
As a result, Dr. Johnson recommended a second surgery to remove
and replace the mesh.
His office notes identify that there was
already “some erosion of her mesh.”
Id. at 153.
Thus, at least
as of the April 19, 2010 doctor visit, Mrs. Timothy was on
3
Appellants raise a series of additional arguments relating
to alleged procedural errors in the district court’s grant of
summary judgment.
None of these arguments have merit.
The
district
court
appropriately
granted
summary
judgment
to
Appellee after finding there were no genuine issues of material
fact. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(a).
7
Appeal: 15-1454
Doc: 36
Filed: 12/16/2016
Pg: 8 of 10
notice of: (1) her injury; (2) the identity of the defective
product’s manufacturer; and (3) the possible causal connection
between her injuries and the mesh, which required her to make
further inquiries.
See First Am. Title Ins. Co. v. J.B. Ranch,
Inc., 966 P.2d 834, 837 (Utah 1998).
Nevertheless, Appellants argue that inquiry notice was
not
triggered
advertisement.
advertisement
until
they
saw
an
attorney
television
However, it seems highly unlikely a lawyer’s
provided
any
new
medically
relevant
information
about “the connection between [Mrs. Timothy’s] injuries and the
actual cause” than that which had already been provided by a
medical
professional.
Appellants’
Br.
3.
Her
doctor
had
already told her the mesh was “causing the bleeding” and warned
of side effects from the mesh, including erosion.
J.A. 141.
C.
Mrs.
Timothy
had
a
duty
to
inquire
starting
on
at
least April 19, 2010, and this court must now determine what a
reasonable inquiry would have uncovered.
Co. of Nev., 292 P.3d at 679.
inquiry
would
have
led
See Pioneer Builders
For starters, even the most basic
to
the
2008
Food
and
Administration’s (“FDA”) warning about transvaginal mesh. 4
4
Drug
The
That the FDA provided a notification in 2008 and the
content of that notification are facts that can be judicially
noticed because they “can be accurately and readily determined
(Continued)
8
Appeal: 15-1454
Doc: 36
Filed: 12/16/2016
Pg: 9 of 10
FDA Notification warned “Serious Complications Associated with
Transvaginal
Organ
Placement
Prolapse
and
of
Surgical
Stress
Mesh
Urinary
in
Repair
Incontinence,”
of
Pelvic
and
it
cautioned that transvaginal mesh was linked to “pain, urinary
problems, and recurrence of prolapse and/or incontinence.”
Notification. 5
FDA
Mrs. Timothy experienced all of these symptoms,
and, indeed, her doctor had already told her mesh was causing
her to bleed.
See J.A. 140 (“Q: So did Dr. Johnson tell you
that he believed that the mesh was what was causing you to
bleed?
A: Yes.”).
The FDA Notification also noted that, in
unusual cases, there were reports of “a significant decrease in
patient quality of life due to discomfort and pain, including
dyspareunia.”
Mrs. Timothy also experienced these symptoms.
Because the FDA had issued an official notification
about the link between the product Mrs. Timothy used and the
injuries
she
suffered,
we
have
no
trouble
concluding
Mrs.
from sources whose accuracy cannot reasonably be questioned.”
Fed. R. Evid. 201(b)(2); see Food and Drug Admin., FDA Public
Health Notification: Serious Complications Associated with
Transvaginal Placement of Surgical Mesh in Repair of Pelvic
Organ Prolapse and Stress Urinary Incontinence (Oct. 20, 2008),
http://www.fda.gov/MedicalDevices/Safety/AlertsandNotices/Public
HealthNotifications/ucm061976.htm (“FDA Notification”) (saved as
ECF opinion attachment).
5
Indeed, the FDA was even more definite about potential
health complications than the attorney advertisements Mrs.
Timothy saw.
9
Appeal: 15-1454
Doc: 36
Filed: 12/16/2016
Pg: 10 of 10
Timothy had notice that the mesh was the cause-in-fact of her
injuries since her doctor visit on April 19, 2010.
As such, her
action filed more than two years later on September 26, 2012, is
time-barred.
IV.
For
the
foregoing
reasons,
the
judgment
of
the
district court is affirmed.
AFFIRMED
10
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?