Adams v. American Medical System, Inc.
705 F. App'x 744
| 10th Cir. | 2017Background
- In July 2007 Adams underwent implantation of a Desara mesh sling to treat stress urinary incontinence.
- By November 2007 she reported severe vaginal pain and bleeding; a doctor found part of the mesh had migrated and was protruding into the vaginal canal and advised excision.
- In December 2007 Adams had a second surgery that excised nearly 2 cm of mesh; her symptoms continued and in some respects worsened.
- Over the following years Adams experienced recurring pain, bleeding, infections, dyspareunia, and worsening incontinence; a new doctor in February 2013 recommended complete removal of the remaining mesh.
- Adams filed suit in June 2013 alleging product liability against the manufacturers; the district court dismissed under Rule 12(b)(6) as time-barred under Utah Code § 78B-6-706 (two-year product-liability limitations).
- The Tenth Circuit affirmed, holding Adams discovered (or should have discovered) both her harm and its possible causal relation to the sling by November 2007, so her June 2013 complaint was untimely.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| When did the § 78B-6-706 two-year clock begin to run? | Adams: it began only when she knew (or with due diligence should have known) her injuries were caused by a defect in the product — i.e., not until 2013 when told full removal required. | Defendants: the clock began when Adams discovered harm and a possible causal relation to the sling (by Nov. 2007). | Held: The limitations period ran no later than Nov. 2007; suit filed in June 2013 was untimely. |
| What constitutes "harm" under § 78B-6-706? | Adams: harm should be the full extent or final diagnosis of injury. | Defendants: harm is the physical injury or illness caused by defendant’s conduct; some actual damage suffices to trigger the period. | Held: "Harm" means physical injury/illness; Adams had suffered actionable harm by Nov. 2007. |
| Is inquiry/possible-cause notice enough to start the clock, or is definitive proof required? | Adams: definitive confirmation of defect is required before limitations begins. | Defendants: Utah law requires only inquiry notice — sufficient information to prompt further inquiry (possible causal relation). | Held: Inquiry notice suffices; definitive confirmation is unnecessary to start the limitations period. |
| Did subsequent ongoing or worsening symptoms restart the limitations period? | Adams: ongoing/worsening harm after partial excision meant limitations should run later. | Defendants: limitations run from initial discovery of harm/possible cause and does not restart with later symptoms. | Held: Continued symptoms do not restart the period; initial discovery (Nov. 2007) controlled. |
Key Cases Cited
- Pace v. Swerdlow, 519 F.3d 1067 (10th Cir. 2008) (standard of review on Rule 12(b)(6) dismissal)
- Free Speech v. Fed. Election Comm’n, 720 F.3d 788 (10th Cir. 2013) (consideration of attachments to complaint)
- Elm Ridge Expl. Co. v. Engle, 721 F.3d 1199 (10th Cir. 2013) (applying state statute of limitations in diversity cases)
- Cahill v. Am. Family Mut. Ins. Co., 610 F.3d 1235 (10th Cir. 2010) (allocation of burdens in affirmative defenses)
- McKinnon v. Tambrands, Inc., 815 F. Supp. 415 (D. Utah 1993) (inquiry notice and need not have confirmed causal diagnosis)
- Strickland v. Gen. Motors Corp., 852 F. Supp. 956 (D. Utah 1994) (plaintiff should have known of causal relation when product failure occurred)