983 F. Supp. 2d 937
M.D. Tenn.2013Background
- Plaintiff Marye Wahl, a Tennessee resident, received Omniscan (a gadolinium-based contrast agent) during MRIs in May and November 2006 and later developed nephrogenic systemic fibrosis (NSF).
- Omniscan packages bore a two-year expiration date required by law; defendants presented unrebutted evidence the product labels had such dates from 1993 onward.
- GE made labeling, warning, and reporting decisions from New Jersey; Omniscan was manufactured abroad and distributed via third parties to Tennessee providers.
- Wahl filed suit directly in the MDL court in Ohio in 2011 under a CMO permitting direct filings; the MDL later transferred the case to the Middle District of Tennessee.
- GE moved for summary judgment arguing Wahl’s claims are time-barred by Tennessee’s Products Liability Act (TPLA) ten-year/one-year-after-expiration statute of repose; Wahl argued New Jersey law should apply (which lacks a comparable repose).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Which forum’s choice-of-law rules apply to a direct-filed MDL case? | Apply MDL/Ohio rules or New Jersey law because labeling decisions occurred in NJ. | Apply originating state's (Tennessee) choice-of-law rules because direct filing was procedural convenience. | Tennessee choice-of-law rules apply. |
| Which state’s substantive law governs the tort claims? | New Jersey law should govern because GE’s principal place of business and labeling decisions were in NJ. | Tennessee law governs because place of injury, domicile, and the plaintiffs’ relationship to the product are centered in Tennessee. | Tennessee substantive law governs. |
| Do the TPLA statutes of repose bar Wahl’s claims? | (If New Jersey applied) repose does not bar claims. | (If Tennessee applied) TPLA requires suit within 1 year after expiration date on product; Wahl sued after that period. | TPLA statute of repose bars the claims; summary judgment for GE. |
| Relevance of In re Bendectin precedent | Bendectin compels applying law of manufacturer/labeling state. | Bendectin is distinguishable and not controlling; place of injury is readily ascertainable here. | Bendectin not controlling; place-of-injury analysis predominates. |
Key Cases Cited
- Van Dusen v. Barrack, 376 U.S. 612 (U.S. 1964) (transferee court ordinarily applies transferor state’s choice-of-law rules)
- In re Bendectin Litig., 857 F.2d 290 (6th Cir. 1988) (discusses applying manufacturer/labeling state law in MDL birth-defect context; treated as distinguishable/dicta here)
- Montgomery v. Wyeth, 580 F.3d 455 (6th Cir. 2009) (applies Restatement most-significant-relationship test and gives weight to place of injury/domicile)
- Hataway v. McKinley, 830 S.W.2d 53 (Tenn. 1992) (Tennessee adopts Restatement (Second) most-significant-relationship approach)
- Penley v. Honda Motor Co., Ltd., 31 S.W.3d 181 (Tenn. 2000) (explains TPLA statute of repose and anticipated-life/expiration-date rule)
Decision: GE’s motion for summary judgment granted; Wahl’s claims dismissed with prejudice under Tennessee law and the TPLA statute of repose.