KWIATKOWSKI v. MENTOR WORLDWIDE LLC
Filing
16
ORDER denying 12 Motion to Certify Question; transferring this action to the U.S. District Court for the District of Minnesota. Ordered by US DISTRICT JUDGE CLAY D LAND on 10/20/2017. (CCL)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF GEORGIA
COLUMBUS DIVISION
IN RE MENTOR CORP. OBTAPE
*
TRANSOBTURATOR SLING PRODUCTS
*
LIABILITY LITIGATION
*
MDL Docket No. 2004
4:08-MD-2004 (CDL)
Case No.
4:16-cv-048 (Kwiatkowski)
O R D E R
Defendant
Mentor
Worldwide
LLC
developed
a
suburethral
sling product called ObTape Transobturator Tape, which was used
to
treat
women
with
stress
urinary
incontinence.
Plaintiff
Paula Kwiatkowski was implanted with ObTape and asserts that she
suffered
injuries
caused
by
ObTape.
Kwiatkowski
brought
a
product liability action against Mentor, contending that ObTape
had design and manufacturing defects that proximately caused her
injuries.
Kwiatkowski
also
asserts
that
Mentor
did
not
adequately warn her physicians about the risks associated with
ObTape.
The
parties
agree
that
Minnesota
law
applies
to
Kwiatkowski’s claims because Kwiatkowski is a Minnesota resident
whose
ObTape-related
parties
further
agree
treatment
that
the
occurred
statute
in
of
Minnesota.
limitations
The
for
Kwiatkowski’s strict liability claims is four years, and the
statute of limitations for her negligence claims is six years.
See Minn. Stat. § 541.05 subd. 2 (“[A]ny action based on the
strict
liability
of
the
defendant
and
arising
from
the
manufacture, sale, use or consumption of a product shall be
commenced within four years.”); Minn. Stat. § 541.05 subd. 1(5)
(establishing
claims
not
six-year
arising
limitation
in
contract
period
or
for
strict
personal
injury
liability).
The
parties do not, however, agree on when a personal injury claim
based on injuries allegedly caused by a defective implantable
medical device accrues under Minnesota law.
Mentor moved to
certify the question to the Minnesota Supreme Court.
Under
Minnesota
law,
the
Minnesota
Supreme
Court
“may
answer a question of law certified to it by a court of the
United States . . . if the answer may be determinative of an
issue in pending litigation in the certifying court and there is
no controlling appellate decision, constitutional provision, or
statute of this state.”
Minn. Stat. Ann. § 480.065 Subd. 3.
Mentor’s request for certification has some superficial appeal
because there is no controlling precedent from the Minnesota
Supreme Court on the proper standard for accrual of productbased personal injury claims under Minnesota law.
The Court has
found this issue to be determinative in many other cases in this
multidistrict
litigation
proceeding.
But
resolution
of
a
summary judgment motion in this action does not turn on the
proper
accrual
standard.
Rather,
it
turns
on
the
facts.
Because it appears from the present record that the Court would
2
deny summary judgment even under the strict accrual standard
advocated
by
Mentor,
the
motion
to
certify
(ECF
No.
12)
is
denied.
FACTUAL BACKGROUND
Mentor did not file a summary judgment motion, but Mentor
did
submit
motion
to
a
statement
certify,
statement of facts.
of
and
relevant
facts
Kwiatkowski
in
support
responded
its
her
with
of
own
Both sides supported their fact statements
with evidentiary submissions.
The Court has reviewed the fact
statements and citations to the record as it would review a
similar record on a summary judgment motion: viewed in the light
most favorable to Kwiatkowski.
The present record reveals the
following.
Plaintiff
Paula
Kwiatkowski
is
a
Minnesota
suffered from stress urinary incontinence.
resident
who
On July 12, 2004,
Kwiatkowski was surgically implanted with ObTape, a synthetic
mesh sling device, to treat her stress urinary incontinence.
Pl.’s
Am.
Fact
Sheet
¶ 2,
ECF
No.
12-6
in
4:16-cv-048.
Kwiatkowski’s implant surgery and other ObTape-related treatment
took
place
in
Minnesota.
ObTape
is
a
non-woven,
thermally
bonded polypropylene mesh tape, and Kwiatkowski asserts that its
physical
properties
cause
ObTape
to
admit
bacteria,
immune cells, and fail to achieve tissue in-growth.
hinder
Due to
these and other issues, ObTape is susceptible to complications
3
like infections and erosion of the ObTape through a patient’s
bodily tissues.
Although erosion and infection are risks of any
sling product, Kwiatkowski asserts that the risk is higher with
ObTape but that Mentor failed to warn her physicians about the
true risks of ObTape.
She also asserts that she suffered from
complications that were caused by defects in ObTape.
Shortly
after
her
implant
surgery,
Kwiatkowski’s
doctor
twice diagnosed her with a vaginal dehiscence, which means that
Kwiatkowski’s surgical incision reopened.
23, ECF No. 13-2 in 4:16-cv-48.
Ashford Dep. 87:14-
Although Kwiatkowski understood
that she needed to have a revision surgery to fix the problem
when it happened in August 2004 and again in November 2004,
neither she nor her doctor concluded that ObTape caused the
incision
because
to
it
problem,
reopen.
looked
but
I
Id.
like
was
at
90:19-25
. . .
looking
this
at
(“Well,
was
this
in
probably
as
a
her
not
regular
case,
a
mesh
incision
dehiscence problem. So I didn't think of it as a repair of a
mesh erosion at the time. I was thinking her incision opened for
some reason that had nothing to do with the [mesh].”).
this
evidence,
a
reasonable
juror
could
Based on
conclude
that
Kwiatkowski did not suffer an injury caused by ObTape in 2004.
After
the
dehiscence
repairs
in
2004,
Kwiatkowski’s
incontinence improved for a while, but it got worse again in
2006.
By 2008, Kwiatkowski was concerned that the ObTape was
4
not working correctly.
And in 2010, Kwiatkowski underwent a
second sling procedure; her doctor removed those portions of the
ObTape that were not embedded, and he implanted a different
sling.
There is no evidence in the present record that ObTape
was causing adverse symptoms, such as pain or discharge.
There
is also no evidence in the present record that ObTape caused
Kwiatkowski’s recurrent stress urinary incontinence or that its
partial
removal
as
part
of
the
2010
sling
placement
was
necessary to correct some problem caused by ObTape.
DISCUSSION
The Minnesota Supreme Court “may answer a question of law
certified to it by a court of the United States . . . if the
answer may be determinative of an issue in pending litigation in
the
certifying
court
and
there
is
no
controlling
appellate
decision, constitutional provision, or statute of this state.”
Minn. Stat. Ann. § 480.065 Subd. 3 (emphasis added).
Mentor is
correct that there is no controlling Minnesota authority on the
proper accrual standard for a personal injury claim based on an
alleged
product
defect.
But,
at
a
minimum,
Minnesota
law
requires that “two elements must be satisfied before a cause of
action accrues in cases involving injuries caused by a defective
product: ‘(1) a cognizable physical manifestation of the disease
or injury, and (2) evidence of a causal connection between the
injury
or
disease
and
the
defendant’s
5
product,
act,
or
omission.’” Rogers v. Mentor Corp., 682 F. App'x 701, 709 (11th
Cir. 2017) (quoting Klempka v. G.D. Searle & Co., 963 F.2d 168,
170 (8th Cir. 1992)) (applying Minnesota law).1
Here,
there
is
no
evidence
in
the
present
record
that
Kwiatkowski suffered an injury that she knew or had reason to
know was caused by ObTape more than four years before she filed
this
action.
There
is
no
evidence
that
the
two
revision
procedures in 2004 were necessitated by an erosion or infection
of the ObTape as opposed to some other surgical complication
that caused Kwiatkowski’s incision to reopen.
dispute
exists
contributed
to
as
the
to
whether
ObTape
complications
was
the
Kwiatkowski
immediately after the implant surgery.
A genuine factual
mechanism
suffered
that
almost
A reasonable jury could,
perhaps, conclude that ObTape caused the incision to reopen.
But Mentor did not point to sufficient evidence for the Court to
exclude the reasonable possibility that the incision issues were
unrelated to the ObTape, or that the surgical procedure itself
contributed to the problems Kwiatkowski suffered.
1
And, although
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit concluded, in an
unpublished opinion, that Minnesota law mirrors Georgia law and that a
product-related personal injury claim does not accrue until the
plaintiff is aware of a causal connection between the plaintiff’s
injuries and a problem with the product. Rogers v. Mentor Corp., 682
F. App’x 701, 710 (11th Cir. 2017).
In other words, the statute of
limitations does not accrue until the plaintiff is aware of a causal
connection between her injuries and the product, as well as a causal
connection between her injuries and some type of misconduct by the
defendant related to the product. The Court need not evaluate whether
there is a genuine fact dispute under this standard because there is a
genuine fact dispute under the stricter standard advocated by Mentor.
6
Mentor appears to suggest that Kwiatkowski undisputedly suffered
injuries caused by ObTape when she had a second sling procedure
in 2010, there is no evidence in the present record that ObTape
caused Kwiatkowski’s recurrent stress urinary incontinence
or
that its partial removal as part of the 2010 sling placement was
necessary to correct some problem caused by ObTape.
these
reasons,
Kwiatkowski
a
genuine
suffered
factual
an
dispute
ObTape-related
exists
For all of
as
when
injury
physical
to
that
would commence the running of the statute of limitations under
Minnesota
law,
even
under
the
strict
standard
advocated
by
Mentor.
CONCLUSION
In light of the interpretation of Minnesota law by a panel
of
the
Eleventh
Circuit
Court
of
Appeals,
this
Court
would
welcome guidance from the Minnesota Supreme Court on the proper
standard
for
accrual
under Minnesota law.
of
product-based
personal
injury
claims
But the Court cannot certify the question
to the Minnesota Supreme Court in this case because the answer
to the question would not make a difference in the outcome.
discussed
above,
even
if
the
standard
advocated
by
As
Mentor
applies, there is a genuine fact dispute on when Kwiatkowski
suffered an injury caused by ObTape, and it is not clear as a
matter of law that she knew or had reason to know that she
suffered an injury caused by ObTape more than four years before
7
she filed this action.
Because it appears from the present
record that the Court would deny summary judgment even under the
accrual standard advocated by Mentor, the motion to certify (ECF
No. 12) is denied.
TRANSFER OF ACTION
Kwiatkowski
filed
this
action
Direct Filing Order in MDL No. 2004.
Filing
§ II(A),
ECF
No.
446
in
pursuant
to
the
Court’s
See Order Regarding Direct
4:08-md-2004
(permitting
plaintiffs from outside the Middle District of Georgia whose
cases “would be subject to transfer to MDL No. 2004” to file
their
cases
“directly
District of Georgia”).
for
pretrial
in
the
MDL
proceedings
in
the
Middle
The action was “filed in MDL No. 2004
proceedings
only,
consistent
with
the
Judicial
Panel on Multidistrict Litigation’s December 3, 2008, Transfer
Order.”
Id. § II(B).
All discovery has been completed, and
this case is ready for trial.
Given that Mentor has not elected to waive venue under
Lexecon Inc. v. Milberg Weiss Bershad Hynes & Lerach, 523 U.S.
26 (1998) since early 2016, the Court finds it appropriate to
transfer this action to the court where venue is proper, the
U.S. District Court for the District of Minnesota. See Compl.
¶ 5, ECF No. 1 (stating that Kwiatkowski would have filed this
action in Minnesota had she not filed it in this Court under the
direct filing order).
For the convenience of that court, the
8
appendix
to
coordinated
this
Order
proceedings,
contains
a
as
as
well
brief
a
chronicle
list
of
of
the
significant
filings and orders in MDL No. 2004.
The Clerk of Court is directed to provide a copy of this
Order
to
the
Clerk
of
the
Judicial
Panel
on
Multidistrict
Litigation.
IT IS SO ORDERED, this 20th day of October, 2017.
S/Clay D. Land
CLAY D. LAND
CHIEF U.S. DISTRICT COURT JUDGE
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF GEORGIA
9
APPENDIX
I.
Brief Background of the Mentor ObTape MDL
Mentor Worldwide LLC manufactured and sold a polypropylene
mesh
suburethral
Tape,
which
was
incontinence.
cleared
sling
used
product
to
called
treat
ObTape
women
with
Transobturator
stress
urinary
The United States Food and Drug Administration
ObTape
for
sale
in
2003
via
its
510(k)
regulatory
process, and ObTape remained on the market in the United States
until March 2006.
About
years
ago,
women
with
implanted
ten
who
ObTape
began
filing
had
lawsuits
been
surgically
against
Mentor,
alleging that they had been injured by ObTape—primarily that
they suffered infections caused by ObTape and that they were
injured when ObTape eroded through their bodily tissues.
In
December 2008, the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation
created MDL No. 2004 and transferred seventeen actions involving
alleged
injuries
resulting
from
ObTape
to
this
consolidated and coordinated pretrial proceedings.
Mentor
Corp.
Litigation,
ObTape
588
F.
Transobturator
Supp.
2d
1374
Sling
Court
See In re
Products
(J.P.M.L.
for
Liability
2008).
After
pretrial proceedings and a bellwether trial that settled midtrial,
the
original
cases
and
approximately
forty
additional
tag-along cases transferred to this Court were resolved through
settlement.
Since then, MDL No. 2004 has grown to include more
10
than 800 additional tag-along cases, although only a few remain
open.
The litigation was divided into phases, and cases from
phase IV-10 are still pending.
In 2013, the Court tried a Phase
III bellwether case to verdict.
In 2016, the Court tried a
Phase IV-1 bellwether case to verdict.
II.
Significant Filings in MDL No. 2004
These filings are, for the most part, evidentiary rulings
that were made in the context of the bellwether cases that
were tried in this Court; these issues may arise again.
1.
Order Denying Motion to Disqualify Expert Witness Dr.
Catherine Ortuno, Apr. 1, 2010. ECF No. 231 in 4:08md-2004; 2010 WL 1416548.
Summary: Mentor sought to exclude the testimony of Dr.
Catherine Ortuno, who was an employee of a French
Mentor subsidiary called Porges.
While she was
employed by Porges, Dr. Ortuno and a colleague
developed concerns about the safety of ObTape and
ultimately recommended that sales of ObTape be
stopped. The Court concluded that Dr. Ortuno would be
permitted to serve as an expert witness for Plaintiffs
but that she would not be permitted to offer any
testimony that would divulge privileged, attorneyclient communications.
2.
Order on Phase I Summary Judgment Motions and
Admissibility of Plaintiffs’ Experts, Apr. 22, 2010.
ECF No. 241 in 4:08-md-2004; 711 F. Supp. 2d 1348.
Summary: Mentor sought to exclude Plaintiffs’ experts
under Federal Rule of Evidence 702.
Dr. Catherine Ortuno – motion denied; the Court found
that
Dr.
Ortuno’s
methodology
was
sufficiently
reliable.
General Causation Witnesses (Dr. Linda Brubaker, Dr.
Suzanne Bush, Dr. Michel Cosson, Dr. John Davis, Dr.
James Hiller, Dr. Mickey Karram, Dr. Kenneth Mitchell,
Dr. Donald Ostergard, Dr. William Porter, and Dr.
Andrew Siegel) – motion denied; the Court found that
these experts’ methodology was sufficiently reliable.
Specific Causation Witnesses (Dr. Linda Brubaker, Dr.
Suzanne Bush, Dr. John Davis, Dr. James Hiller, Dr.
11
Mickey Karram, Dr. Kenneth Mitchell, and Dr. Mark
Slack) – motion denied; the Court found that these
experts’ methodology was sufficiently reliable.
Dr. George Samaras – motion granted in part and denied
in part; based on then-existing Rule 26 Report, the
Court concluded that Dr. Samaras would be permitted to
testify
on
general
causation
but
not
specific
causation.
Dr. Ahmed El-Ghannam – motion denied; the Court found
that Dr. El-Ghannam’s opinions were sufficiently
reliable.
Dr. Paul Ducheyne – motion granted in part and denied
in part; based on then-existing Rule 26 Report, the
Court concluded that Dr. Ducheyne could not testify
regarding what caused degradation in ObTape but could
testify that Mentor should have done more testing
based on Mentor’s awareness that ObTape could degrade.
Dr. Arnold Lentnek – motion deferred pending Daubert
hearing. On May 12, 2010, the Court decided to permit
Dr. Lentnek’s testimony (ECF No. 301 in 4:08-md-2004).
3.
Order re Evidence Related to FDA Regulatory Process,
Apr. 23, 2010.
ECF No. 242 in 4:08-md-2004; 2010 WL
1734638.
Summary: Plaintiffs sought to exclude evidence related
to the FDA regulatory process. Discussed basic rules
regarding
evidence
of
FDA
regulatory
process.
Deferred ruling until pretrial conference.
At the
pretrial conference on May 3, 2010, the Court granted
the motion in limine but stated that if Plaintiffs
opened the door to the FDA evidence, it could come in.
(ECF No. 299 – Transcript 174:9-175:16).
Note: the Court admitted 510(k) evidence during the
2013 trial of Morey v. Mentor, 4:11-cv-5065 but gave a
limiting instruction on this issue.
Morey, Jury
Instructions Charge No. 11, ECF No. 183 in 4:11-cv5065.
But the Court reconsidered its ruling on the
admissibility of FDA 510(k) evidence in its order on
Phase IV-1 motions in limine dated December 3, 2015.
4.
Order re Phase I Plaintiffs’ Experts, Apr. 27, 2010.
ECF No. 246 in 4:08-md-2004; 2010 WL 1727828.
Summary: Mentor sought to exclude the testimony of
Plaintiffs’ experts under Federal Rule of Evidence 702
and based on relevance.
The motion was granted in
part and denied in part.
12
Dr. Ann Buchholtz – testimony not permitted.
Rabbit Study – testimony explaining rabbit study
permitted, but not testimony that rabbit study
establishes that ObTape is capable of causing similar
conditions in humans.
Mentor’s Warnings to Physicians and the FDA –
testimony may be relevant to failure to warn claim,
but
Plaintiff
must
establish
relevance
before
eliciting this testimony.
5.
Order re Phase I Experts, Apr. 29, 2010. ECF No. 282
in 4:08-md-2004; 2010 WL 1782272.
Summary:
The
parties
sought
to
exclude
expert
testimony of each other’s experts under Federal Rule
of Evidence 702. The motions were denied.
Dr. Michael Chernick (Plaintiffs’ statistician) –
testimony permitted.
Mentor’s Specific Causation Rebuttal Witnesses (Dr.
Marta Villarraga, Dr. Charles L. Secrest, Dr. A.W.
Karchmer,
Dr.
James
M.
Anderson)
–
testimony
permitted.
Dr. Marta Villarraga (Mentor’s expert re Mentor’s
conduct in bringing ObTape to Market) – testimony
permitted.
Mentor’s Experts regarding Pore Distribution (Drs.
Villarraga and Clevenger) – testimony permitted.
6.
Phase I Bellwether Pretrial Conference Transcript (Day
1), May 3, 2010. ECF No. 299 in 4:08-md-2004. Ruled
from
the
bench
on
several
motions
in
limine.
Significant Issues:
Cross Motions to Exclude Evidence re FDA Regulatory
Process (ECF Nos. 249 & 259) – Granted.
Hr’g Tr.
164:11-175:16.
Written opinion on this issue
December 3, 2015. See infra § III.18.i.
Plaintiffs’ Motion to Exclude “Complication Rates”
(ECF Nos. 250 & 251) – Denied.
Hr’g Tr. 175:20178:19.
7.
Phase I Bellwether Pretrial Conference Transcript (Day
2), May 4, 2010. ECF No. 300 in 4:08-md-2004. Ruled
from
the
bench
on
several
motions
in
limine.
Significant Issue:
Mentor’s Motion to Exclude Evidence Adverse Event
Reports (ECF No. 273) – Denied, but reports must be
redacted. Hr’g Tr. 42:7-47:8.
13
8.
Order re Dr. Arnold Lentnek, May 12, 2010.
ECF No.
301 in 4:08-md-2004.
Summary: Denied Mentor’s motion to exclude Dr.
Lentnek, concluding that Dr. Lentnek’s methodology was
sufficiently reliable.
9.
Order to “Tie Up Some Loose Ends” after Pretrial
Conference, May 18, 2010.
ECF No. 335 in 4:08-md2004, 2010 WL 1998166.
Summary: addressed several issues. Significantly, the
Court stated that it would permit recording of the
testimony of European witnesses so the recordings
could be used in later trials of MDL No. 2004 cases.
Also addressed the trial structure and concluded that
trial should be bifurcated (Phase 1: compensatory
damages/punitive
damages
entitlement;
Phase
2:
punitive damages amount).
Note: part of this Order was later vacated (see ECF
350 re continuing duty to warn under Georgia law).
10.
Order re Subsequent Remedial Measure, May 20, 2010.
ECF No. 341 in 4:08-md-2004, 2010 WL 2015146.
Summary: Concluded that Mentor’s decision to stop
selling ObTape is a subsequent remedial measure under
Federal Rule of Evidence 407, so evidence of this
decision is not admissible “to prove negligence,
culpable conduct, a defect in a product, a defect in a
product's design, or a need for a warning or
instruction” but may be admitted for another purpose.
Also concluded that Mentor’s introduction of a new
sling product, Aris, was not a subsequent remedial
measure under Federal Rule of Evidence 407.
11.
Order re Similar Complications, May 28, 2010. ECF No.
351 in 4:08-md-2004, 2010 WL 2196632.
Summary: Explained rationale for concluding that other
incidents
of
ObTape
complications
proffered
by
Plaintiffs were substantially similar to Plaintiffs’
injuries.
12.
Order Appointing Plaintiffs’ Liaison Counsel and CoLead Counsel, Sept. 21, 2011. ECF No. 422 in 4:08-md2004.
13.
Order Establishing Plaintiffs’ Litigation Expense Fund
and Common Benefit, Aug. 9, 2012.
ECF No. 493 in
14
4:08-md-2004.
This agreement is between Plaintiffs’
counsel and addresses the sharing among Plaintiffs of
the cost of special services performed and expenses
performed for the common benefit of the Plaintiffs of
MDL No. 2004.
14.
Text Order re Dr. Ahmed El-Ghannam, June 4, 2013 in
Morey v. Mentor, 4:11-cv-5065. Explained that general
causation witness’s must be tied to the Plaintiff: “To
introduce [Dr. El-Ghannam’] testimony regarding ObTape
degradation and/or the release of toxins, the witness
must establish a causal connection between that
degradation and/or release of toxins and Plaintiff’s
infection and extrusion/erosion.”
15.
Order re Post-Injury Evidence/Punitive Damages (in
Morey v. Mentor), June 12, 2013. ECF No. 671 in 4:08md-2004.
Summary: Concluded that, under Minnesota law, certain
post-injury evidence is admissible on the issue of
punitive damages.
Order re Withdrawal of ObTape from the Market (in
Morey v. Mentor), June 12, 2013. ECF No. 673 in 4:08md-2004.
Summary: Reiterated that the withdrawal of ObTape from
the market was a subsequent remedial measure under
Federal Rule of Evidence 407.
16.
17.
18.
Jury Instructions and verdict form in Morey v. Mentor,
June 13, 2013.
ECF No. 183 in 4:11-cv-5065.
Notes:
Morey asserted a negligence claim under Minnesota law.
The Court reconsidered its ruling on the admissibility
of FDA 510(k) evidence in its order on Phase IV-1
motions in limine dated December 3, 2015.
Order on Motions in Limine, Dec. 3, 2015 (in Taylor,
4:12-cv-176; Sanborn, 4:13-cv-42; and Mack, 4:14-cv117), ECF No. 92 in 4:12-cv-176, 2015 WL 7863032.
Significant issues:
i.
FDA 510(k) Evidence.
Ruled that evidence of
510(k) preclearance process would not be
admitted because even if it is relevant, the
probative value is substantially outweighed by
the risk of unfair prejudice and potential to
confuse and mislead the jury.
15
ii.
Dr. Lentnek. Ruled that Plaintiffs would have
to establish “fit” prior to admission of Dr.
Lentnek’s testimony.
iii.
Dr. El-Ghannam.
Ruled that Plaintiffs would
have to make proffer of specific causation
before Dr. El-Ghannam could testify on certain
issues.
iv.
Post-Implant Evidence.
Ruled that evidence of
Mentor’s
conduct
and
awareness
after
Plaintiffs’ implant date is admissible.
19.
Order re Similar Complications (in Taylor, 4:12-cv176; Sanborn, 4:13-cv-42; and Mack, 4:14-cv-117), Feb.
1, 2016. ECF No. 115 in 4:12-cv-176, 2016 WL 393958.
Summary: Explained rationale for concluding that other
incidents
of
ObTape
complications
proffered
by
Plaintiffs were substantially similar to Plaintiffs’
injuries.
20.
Jury Instructions and verdict form in Taylor v.
Mentor, Feb. 18, 2016. ECF Nos. 172, 174 in 4:12-cv176. Note: Taylor’s claims were under Florida law.
16
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?