Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Shumaker v. Atrium Medical Corp.

United States District Court, D. New Hampshire

August 13, 2019

Joseph Shumaker
v.
Atrium Medical Corporation, Maquet Cardiovascular U.S. Sales, LLC, and Getinge AB In re Atrium Medical Corp. C-QUR Mesh Products Liability Litigation MDL No. 2753

          ORDER

          LANDYA B. MOCAFFERTY UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

         Joseph Shumaker brings suit against Atrium Medical Corporation (“Atrium”), a medical device company that manufactured and sold C-QUR Mesh, and two related companies, Maquet Cardiovascular U.S. Sales, LLC (“Maquet”) and Getinge AB (“Getinge”), alleging product liability claims and breach of warranty claims. Shumaker's suit is part of a multi-district litigation (“MDL”) proceeding involving claims that C-QUR Mesh was, among other things, defective and unreasonably dangerous and caused injury when surgically implanted for hernia repair. His case was selected in the MDL proceeding for the Initial Discovery Pool, making it a bellwether case.

         Defendants Atrium and Maquet move to dismiss Shumaker's claims on the grounds that they are barred by the statute of limitations and that he has not stated an actionable claim for relief under Kansas law, which they contend applies to Shumaker's claims.[1] Shumaker objects, arguing that the discovery rule and other equitable tolling doctrines apply to make his claims timely. He also challenges defendants' choice of law analysis and argues that his claims are actionable.

         STANDARD OF REVIEW

         Under Rule 12(b)(6), the court must accept the factual allegations in the complaint as true, construe reasonable inferences in the plaintiff's favor, and “determine whether the factual allegations in the plaintiff's complaint set forth a plausible claim upon which relief may be granted.” Foley v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., 772 F.3d 63, 71 (1st Cir. 2014) (internal quotation marks omitted). A claim is facially plausible “when the plaintiff pleads factual content that allows the court to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009).

         BACKGROUND

         Although Shumaker is now a resident of Alabama, at the time of the surgical procedures at issue in this case, he lived in Kansas. He had a surgical procedure to repair abdominal wall hernias in May 2010 at a hospital in Shawnee Mission, Kansas. His physician implanted a piece of C-QUR V Patch mesh, which defendants manufactured and sold to his physician, for the repair.

         In June 2014, Shumaker had another surgical procedure because his hernia had reoccurred. During that procedure, his physician found that the mesh patch had come off the abdominal wall, formed into a ball, and was covered with pus. That procedure was done in Kansas City, Missouri.

         Atrium, which designed, marketed, and sold the C-QUR V Patch mesh that was implanted into Shumaker, is located in New Hampshire. Maquet is located in New Jersey, and Getinge is a Swedish corporation. Shumaker alleges that Maquet and Getinge are responsible for Atrium's actions and exercised control over Atrium with respect to oversight and compliance with applicable safety standards.

         Shumaker alleges, among other things, that defendants designed, manufactured, marketed, and sold C-QUR mesh to be used by surgeons for hernia repair. C-QUR mesh was intended to be permanently implanted for those repairs, and defendants represented that C-QUR mesh was safe and effective for that purpose. Shumaker further alleges that C-QUR mesh was not safe or effective for its intended purpose, that defendants failed to adequately research and test it to determine the risks and benefits of the mesh, and that they failed to warn of risks although they had been notified that the mesh was causing widespread catastrophic complications. He alleges claims of negligence (Count I); product liability under the Kansas Product Liability Act (Count II); strict liability - design defect (Count III); strict liability - manufacturing defect (Count IV); strict liability - failure to warn (Count V); breach of express warranty (Count VI); breach of implied warranties of merchantability and fitness of purpose (Count VII); and punitive damages (Count VIII).

         DISCUSSION

         Defendants Atrium and Maquet move to dismiss all of Shumaker's claims as time-barred under the applicable New Hampshire statutes of limitations. They also argue that Kansas law governs the liability portions of Shumaker's claims and that: (1) Counts I and III-VII fail to state claims for relief; (2) Count II, alleging joint and several liability, is not viable; and (3) Count VIII for punitive damages is not an actionable claim. Shumaker objects, arguing that his claims are not time-barred, that New Hampshire law governs the liability portions of his claims, and that Count VIII is seeking a special category of damages and should proceed as a separate count.

         I. Statute of Limitations

         The parties agree that New Hampshire's statutes of limitations, as procedural rules of the forum state, apply in this case. See TIG Ins. Co. v. EIFlow Ins. Ltd., No. 14-cv-459-JL, 2015 WL 5714686, at *3 (D.N.H. Sept. 29, 2015) (discussing circumstances under which it is appropriate for this court sitting in diversity to apply New Hampshire's statute of limitations). They further agree that Shumaker's product liability claims, Counts I through V, are governed by RSA 508:4, I, and the breach of warranty claims, Counts VI and VII, are governed by RSA 382-A:2-725.

         A. Product Liability Claims

         Under New Hampshire law, “[e]xcept as otherwise provided by law, all personal actions, . . . may be brought only within 3 years of the act ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.