Sharrene Timothy v. Boston Scientific Corporation
665 F. App'x 295
| 4th Cir. | 2016Background
- Mrs. Sharrene Timothy received Boston Scientific transvaginal mesh on June 30, 2009; surgeon Dr. Johnson informed her he would use Boston Scientific mesh and warned of risks including erosion.
- Within 6–7 months she experienced pelvic pain, dyspareunia, bleeding, and a scratching sensation; by April 19, 2010 Dr. Johnson diagnosed mesh erosion, said he could “feel the mesh” and that it was causing bleeding, and performed a corrective surgery.
- Symptoms persisted thereafter; plaintiffs (Mrs. Timothy and derivative-spouse Mr. Timothy) filed a products-liability suit on September 26, 2012 as part of the MDL against Boston Scientific.
- The district court granted summary judgment for defendant, holding the suit barred by Utah’s two-year statute of limitations for products-liability claims; plaintiffs appealed.
- The Fourth Circuit applied Utah substantive law (most significant relationship test) and concluded plaintiffs were on inquiry notice by April 19, 2010, so the September 2012 filing was time-barred.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Utah’s two-year UPLA limitations period barred the suit | Timothy contended claim did not accrue until they saw an attorney TV ad (late 2011) and thus was timely | Boston Scientific argued claim accrued when Mrs. Timothy knew injury, maker, and possible causal link—at latest April 19, 2010 | Court held claim accrued April 19, 2010; suit filed >2 years later is time-barred |
| What triggers accrual for products-liability under Utah law | Timothy argued causation requirement means cause-in-fact must be known before accrual | Boston Scientific argued notice of a possible causal relation suffices to trigger accrual and duty to investigate | Court held accrual requires knowledge of injury, manufacturer identity, and possible causal relation; possible causal relation sufficed here |
| Whether a reasonable inquiry after notice would have revealed causation | Timothy argued only attorney ads provided connecting information | Boston Scientific pointed to doctor’s statement and that a basic inquiry would have revealed the FDA 2008 Public Health Notification linking mesh to the alleged harms | Court held a reasonable inquiry would have revealed the FDA warning and other information; doctor’s statements already put Timothy on inquiry notice |
| Whether any genuine factual dispute precluded summary judgment | Timothy asserted procedural errors and factual disputes exist | Boston Scientific maintained no genuine material facts precluded summary judgment on accrual/limitations | Court found no merit to procedural arguments and affirmed summary judgment for defendant |
Key Cases Cited
- RLM Commc’ns, Inc. v. Tuschen, 831 F.3d 190 (4th Cir. 2016) (standard of review for summary judgment)
- In re Temporomandibular Joint (TMJ) Implants Prod. Liab. Litig., 97 F.3d 1050 (8th Cir. 1996) (choice-of-law principles when conduct occurs in another state)
- Waddoups v. Amalgamated Sugar Co., 54 P.3d 1054 (Utah 2002) (Utah uses most significant relationship test for tort choice of law)
- Macris v. Sculptured Software, Inc., 24 P.3d 984 (Utah 2001) (inquiry notice sufficient to trigger limitations period)
- Pioneer Builders Co. of Nev. v. K D A Corp., 292 P.3d 672 (Utah 2012) (knowledge imputed from reasonable inquiry)
- Aragon v. Clover Club Foods Co., 857 P.2d 250 (Utah Ct. App. 1993) (elements triggering accrual in products-liability claims)