Hammons, P. v. Ethicon, Inc.
190 A.3d 1248
Pa. Super. Ct.2018Background
- Patricia Hammons underwent vaginal hysterectomy with Ethicon’s Prolift mesh implant in May 2009 and later experienced chronic pain, dyspareunia, incontinence and mesh erosion requiring multiple excision surgeries.
- Hammons sued Ethicon (and others) in Philadelphia (filed May 31, 2013) alleging negligent design and failure to warn under Indiana product‑liability law; New Jersey law governed punitive damages.
- A jury found Ethicon liable, awarding $5.5 million compensatory and $7 million punitive damages; total judgment (with delay damages applied to compensatory award) was entered and both parties appealed.
- Key factual evidence: Ethicon collaborated with Pennsylvania entities (Secant and Dr. Lucente) in mesh design/testing; internal Ethicon documents and experts showed knowledge of significant risks and that warnings/IFU understated those risks.
- Pretrial and trial rulings at issue included denial of Ethicon’s personal‑jurisdiction challenge, denial of JNOV on statute‑of‑limitations and causation/warning/design claims, admission of testimony about destroyed Ethicon documents, and refusal to remit compensatory or punitive awards.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Hammons) | Defendant's Argument (Ethicon) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Personal jurisdiction | Pennsylvania ties (design/manufacture contacts; Secant, Dr. Lucente) permit specific jurisdiction | Bristol‑Myers compels dismissal for nonresident claims absent suit‑related forum conduct | Court: No waiver; specific jurisdiction exists—Ethicon’s Pennsylvania‑centered design/manufacture contacts were suit‑related |
| Statute of limitations / discovery rule | Injury was not linked to Prolift until diagnosis by Dr. Heit (Aug 30, 2012); suit timely | Claim barred by Indiana 2‑yr limitations; plaintiff should have discovered earlier | Court: Jury could reasonably find accrual on/after Aug 16, 2011; denial of JNOV affirmed (fact question for jury) |
| Failure to warn / causation | Ethicon’s IFU/brochures omitted known, severe risks; treating surgeon relied on Ethicon; warnings inadequate; defect caused injuries | Warnings covered relevant risks; surgeon had notes discussing risks; causation attributable to surgical placement | Court: Sufficient evidence for jury on inadequate warnings and causation; directed verdict/JNOV denied |
| Safer‑alternative design / instruction | Not required as element under Indiana law; presented evidence (Ultrapro/Prolift+M) | Plaintiff must prove feasible safer alternative and jury should have been so instructed | Court: Under Indiana law (TRW), safer‑alternative proof is not a required element (may be probative); no instruction error; JNOV denied |
| Spoliation / admission of destroyed‑document testimony | Ethicon: admission of testimony about destroyed files prejudiced defendant; called a de facto sanction | Hammons: testimony explains missing records; relevant for credibility; no adverse inference instruction required | Court: Trial court properly admitted testimony under relevance/403 analysis (not a spoliation sanction); denial of adverse‑inference instruction not error |
| Punitive / delay damages | Hammons: delay damages should apply to entire verdict | Ethicon: punitive award improper or should not carry delay; also challenges punitive grounds | Court: Punitive award supported under NJ law on evidence of wanton/willful disregard; delay damages properly limited to compensatory award under Pa. Rule 238/Colodonato |
Key Cases Cited
- International Shoe Co. v. Washington, 326 U.S. 310 (U.S. 1945) (baseline due‑process personal‑jurisdiction principles)
- Burger King Corp. v. Rudzewicz, 471 U.S. 462 (U.S. 1985) (purposeful availment/contacts analysis)
- Daimler AG v. Bauman, 571 U.S. 117 (U.S. 2014) (limits on general jurisdiction)
- Bristol‑Myers Squibb Co. v. Superior Court of California, 137 S. Ct. 1773 (U.S. 2017) (specific jurisdiction requires connection between forum and the claim)
- Degussa Corp. v. Mullens, 744 N.E.2d 407 (Ind. 2001) (Indiana discovery rule for accrual of product‑liability claims)
- TRW Vehicle Safety Systems, Inc. v. Moore, 936 N.E.2d 201 (Ind. 2010) (IPLA standard: negligence standard controls; safer‑alternative proof not required as element)
- Colodonato v. Consolidated Rail Corp., 470 A.2d 475 (Pa. 1983) (Rule 238 delay damages apply to compensatory damages only)