Martha Carlson v. Boston Scientific Corporation, 856 F.3d 320

Background

In 2010 Dr. Kennelly implanted Boston Scientific’s Uphold transvaginal mesh in Martha Carlson, who later alleged pain, recurrent prolapse, incontinence, and bowel/bladder problems from the device.
Carlson sued Boston Scientific in multidistrict litigation (MDL), asserting, among other claims, negligent failure to warn based on allegedly inadequate Directions for Use (DFU).
At the MDL stage, Boston Scientific moved for summary judgment on the failure-to-warn claim; Carlson opposed with limited excerpts of Dr. Kennelly’s deposition and an affidavit stating she would not have undergone the procedure if warned of risks.
The MDL court granted summary judgment on failure to warn, reasoning Carlson produced no evidence that Dr. Kennelly or she read or relied on the DFU—an essential element of proximate cause under North Carolina law.
After transfer for trial on remaining claims, Carlson moved under Rule 54(b) to reconsider the MDL partial summary judgment, submitting additional deposition excerpts (available earlier) showing Dr. Kennelly had reviewed the DFU; the district court denied reconsideration.
The Fourth Circuit affirmed both the MDL court’s partial summary judgment (de novo) and the denial of reconsideration (abuse-of-discretion), holding Carlson failed to present evidence of reliance at the summary judgment stage and the reconsideration did not present newly unavailable evidence.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether MDL court erred in granting summary judgment on failure-to-warn under NC law	Carlson: Warnings in DFU were inadequate and would have affected surgeon’s decision; her affidavit shows she would not have consented if warned	Boston Sci.: No evidence Carlson or Dr. Kennelly read or relied on the DFU, so no proximate cause	Affirmed: Plaintiff failed to produce evidence of reliance; summary judgment proper (reviewed de novo)
Whether additional deposition excerpts justify reconsideration under Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(b)	Carlson: Newly cited excerpts show Dr. Kennelly reviewed DFU, creating triable issue of proximate cause; MDL ruling was clear error causing manifest injustice	Boston Sci.: Deposition was available pre-summary judgment; evidence is not newly discovered and does not warrant revising the interlocutory order	Affirmed: District court did not abuse discretion; evidence was available earlier and motion was impermissible effort to cure prior omissions
Whether Rule 56 permits courts to consider uncited record materials at summary judgment	Carlson: Court should consider entire record, including uncited excerpts, to assess proximate cause	Boston Sci.: Rule 56 requires parties to identify supporting evidence; courts may limit review to cited materials	Held: Parties bear responsibility to cite evidence at summary judgment; courts may rely on cited materials and MDL court did not err
Whether law-of-the-case or finality principles bar revisiting MDL partial summary judgment	Carlson: Later-stage proceedings and additional evidence justify revisiting the issue	Boston Sci.: Reconsideration should be limited; judge reviewing another judge’s interlocutory ruling should be hesitant to overrule absent new evidence	Held: Rule 54(b) is flexible but not limitless; law-of-the-case principles apply and revision requires substantially different evidence or other recognized grounds, which were not met

Key Cases Cited

Pegg v. Hernberger, 845 F.3d 112 (4th Cir.) (standard of review for summary judgment)
Evans v. Evans, 569 S.E.2d 303 (N.C. Ct. App.) (proximate cause in failure-to-warn requires reliance)
Holley v. Burroughs Wellcome Co., 330 S.E.2d 228 (N.C. Ct. App.) (physician reliance on warnings for proximate cause)
Am. Canoe Ass’n v. Murphy Farms, Inc., 326 F.3d 505 (4th Cir.) (Rule 54(b) reconsideration principles and law-of-the-case discussion)
TFWS, Inc. v. Franchot, 572 F.3d 186 (4th Cir.) (law-of-the-case doctrine explanation)
Cray Commc’ns, Inc. v. Novatel Comput. Sys., Inc., 33 F.3d 390 (4th Cir.) (denial of reconsideration when motion supplies evidence omitted earlier)
RGI, Inc. v. Unified Indus., Inc., 963 F.2d 658 (4th Cir.) (affirming denial of reconsideration under similar circumstances)
Cartaret Sav. Bank, P.A. v. Compton, Luther & Sons, Inc., 899 F.2d 340 (4th Cir.) (same)