MCLAUGHLIN v. BAYER, CORP. et al

Filing 604

ORDER THAT BOTH SETS OF OBJECTIONS ARE GRANTED IN PART AND DENIED IN PART. 1. Plaintiffs Objections are SUSTAINED insofar as they object to the Special Masters recommendations that (1) E.H.s non-pregnancy-related tort claims are time-barred; and (2) S.C.s tort claims for injuries from her left coil are time-barred.2. Plaintiffs Objections are OVERRULED in all other respects.3. Bayers Objections are SUSTAINED insofar as they object to the Special Mastersrecommendations that (1) S.H.s tor t claims are not time-barred; (2) S.G.s nonpregnancy-related tort claims are not time-barred; and (3) J.H.s tort claims concerningher left coil are not time-barred.4. Bayers Objections are OVERRULED in all other respects.. SIGNED BY HONORABLE JOHN R. PADOVA ON 4/2/2020. 4/2/2020 ENTERED AND COPIES E-MAILED.(kp, )

Download PDF
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA HELEN McLAUGHLIN v. BAYER ESSURE, INC., et al. And Related Actions : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : CIVIL ACTION NO. 14-7315 NO. 14-7316 (Ruble) NO. 14-7318 (Stelzer) NO. 14-7317 (Strimel) NO. 15-0384 (Walsh) NO. 16-1458 (Dunstan) NO. 16-1645 (Clarke) NO. 16-1921 (Souto) NO. 16-2166 (Bailey) NO. 16-2154 (Campos) NO. 16-2717 (Bolds) NO. 16-3049 (Tulgetske) NO. 16-3409 (Abeyta) NO. 16-3589 (Burgis) NO. 16-3710 (Dong) NO. 16-3730 (Mantor) NO. 16-3731 (Olague) NO. 16-3732 (Gross) NO. 16-3733 (Johnson) NO. 16-3766 (Summerlin) NO. 16-3767 (Rodvill) NO. 16-3769 (Quinton) NO. 16-4081 (Bradford) NO. 17-2915 (Wistrom) NO. 17-3968 (Bobo) NO. 17-4417 (Guess) NO. 17-4936 (Gonzalez) NO. 18-37 (Jenson) NO. 18-836 (Morua) NO. 18-837 (Galan) NO. 18-838 (Alfaro) NO. 18-908 (Archer) ORDER AND NOW, this 2nd day of April, 2020, upon consideration of “Plaintiffs’ Objections to Portions of the Special Master’s October 21, 2019 Amended Report and Recommendation” (Docket No. 525 in McLaughlin), “Defendants’ Objections to Special Master’s Amended Report & Recommendation” (Docket No. 521 in McLaughlin), and all documents filed in connection with both sets of Objections, and for the reasons set forth in the accompanying Memorandum, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that both sets of Objections are GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART as follows: 1. Plaintiffs’ Objections are SUSTAINED insofar as they object to the Special Master’s recommendations that (1) E.H.’s non-pregnancy-related tort claims are time-barred; and (2) S.C.’s tort claims for injuries from her left coil are time-barred. 2. Plaintiffs’ Objections are OVERRULED in all other respects. 3. Bayer’s Objections are SUSTAINED insofar as they object to the Special Master’s recommendations that (1) S.H.’s tort claims are not time-barred; (2) S.G.’s nonpregnancy-related tort claims are not time-barred; and (3) J.H.’s tort claims concerning her left coil are not time-barred. 4. Bayer’s Objections are OVERRULED in all other respects. BY THE COURT /s/ John R. Padova, J. _________________________________ John R. Padova, J. 2

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?