Campbell v. Bos. Scientific Corp., CIVIL ACTION NO. 2:12-cv-08633
| Decision Date | 03 October 2016 |
| Docket Number | CIVIL ACTION NO. 2:12-cv-08633 |
| Parties | CAROL SUE CAMPBELL, et al., Plaintiffs, v. BOSTON SCIENTIFIC CORPORATION, Defendant. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Southern District of West Virginia |
(Defendant's Renewed Motion for Judgment as a Matter of Law & Motion for New Trials)
Pending before the court are defendant Boston Scientific Corporation's Renewed Motion for Judgment as a Matter of Law [Docket 581] and Motion for New Trials [Docket 579]. For the reasons discussed below, the defendant's motions are DENIED.
This case consolidated the cases of four plaintiffs within the Boston Scientific Corporation ("BSC") MDL, MDL 2326. (Pretrial Order # 78 [Docket 9]).1 At present, the BSC MDL contains approximately 19,000 individual cases. The Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation assigned the BSC MDL to this court, along with six other MDLs that concern the use of transvaginal surgical mesh to treat pelvic organ prolapse ("POP") and stress urinary incontinence ("SUI"). More than 70,000 cases are currently pending in the MDLs. In this particular case, the plaintiffs allege injuriesassociated with implantation of the Obtryx Transobturator Mid-Urethral Sling System ("Obtryx"), a polypropylene mesh product manufactured by BSC to treat SUI.2
Dr. Bhanot performed Chris Wilson's implant surgery on May 20, 2010. (Short Form Compl., No. 2:14-cv-5475 [Docket 1], at 3). Approximately ten to twelve months after her surgery, Ms. Wilson began to experience pain in her abdomen, vagina, and pelvis, which prompted her to visit the emergency room. (Trial Tr. (Nov. 5, 2014) [Docket 485], at 809:1-10). Ms. Wilson eventually visited a gynecologist who diagnosed her with bilateral cysts in her ovaries and fibroids in her uterus. (Id. at 809:11-19). Dr. Jagganath, Ms. Wilson's general practitioner, prescribed pain pills, which only provided temporary relief. (Id. at 809:20-24, 810:10-18). Dr. Jagganath suggested Ms. Wilson follow up with her urologist, Dr. Bhanot, who recommended Ms. Wilson undergo a second surgery. (Id. at 811:5-8, 813:21-24). After the second surgery, Ms. Wilson continued to experience pain in her pelvis and vagina. (Id. at 815:1-9). Dr. Bhanot suggested Ms. Wilson return to Dr. Jagganath, who referred her to a back and spine specialist. (Id. at 815:14-19). After finding no medical issues associated with her back and spine, Ms. Wilson returned again to Dr. Jagganath and, subsequently, to Dr. Bhanot. (Id. at 816:2-5, 816:18). Dr. Bhanot recommended Ms. Wilson have a colonoscopy; however, both Ms. Wilson and Dr. Jagganath did not believe it was necessary. (Id. at 817:8-16). Attributing her injuries to the Obtryx, Ms. Wilson filed suit against BSC on January 29, 2014. (Short Form Compl., No. 2:14-cv-5475 [Docket 1]).
Dr. Bhanot performed Carol Campbell's implant surgery on January 6, 2011. (Short Form Compl., No. 2:13-cv-18786 [Docket 1], at 3). Approximately ten weeks after her surgery, Ms. Campbell attempted to have intercourse with her boyfriend, but they both experienced pain, prompting her to return to Dr. Bhanot. (Trial Tr. (Nov. 10, 2014) [Docket 487], at 1053:14-20). Because Ms. Campbell's mesh had eroded, Dr. Bhanot recommended she undergo a revision surgery, which took place on April 7, 2011. (Id. at 1054:17-21, 1055:14-15, 1056:11-14). After her revision surgery, Ms. Campbell continued to experience dyspareunia and returned to see Dr. Bhanot. (Id. at 1057:3-12). Eventually, Ms. Campbell sought a second opinion and visited Dr. Kasturi in October 2011. (Id. at 1057:21-22, 1058:5-10). During the October visit, Dr. Kasturi removed a piece of mesh from inside Ms. Campbell. (Id. at 1058:20-1059:3). The following month, Dr. Kasturi removed additional mesh. (Id. at 1059:15-24). Ms. Campbell's SUI returned, and she received a bulking injection, performed by Dr. Lohri, in an attempt to treat her symptoms. (Id. at 1060:10-12, 1061:2-14). However, her relief was only temporary and she continues to suffer pelvic pain. (Id. at 1063:22-23). Attributing these injuries to the Obtryx, Ms. Campbell filed suit against BSC on July 10, 2013. (Short Form Compl., No. 2:13-cv-18786 [Docket 1]).
Dr. Lassere performed Jeanie Blankenship's implant surgery on April 8, 2009. (Short Form Compl., No. 2:13-cv-22906 [Docket 1], at 4). Approximately nine weeks after her surgery, Ms. Blankenship experienced dyspareunia. (Trial Tr. (Nov. 12, 2014) [Docket 501], at 1138:18-20). For the next couple of weeks, Ms. Blankenship also had trouble voiding her bladder and suffered painful urination. (Id. at 1139:18-1140:13). Eventually, Ms. Blankenship returned to see Dr. Lassere. (Id. at 1143:13-17). In July 2012, Ms. Blankenship underwent a revision surgery. (Id. at1144:4-6). Following her second surgery, Ms. Blankenship's SUI returned, and she continued to experience pelvic pain. (Id. at 1147:19-21, 1148:10-11). In March 2013, Dr. Capelle performed a third surgery on Ms. Blankenship to implant a new product. (Id. at 1149:21-22, 1150:7-9). The new implant successfully treated Ms. Blankenship's SUI; however, she continues to experience both pelvic pain and dyspareunia. (Id. at 1152:4-7, 1152:21-1153:19). Attributing these injuries to the Obtryx, Ms. Blankenship filed suit against BSC on September 12, 2013. (Short Form Compl., No. 2:13-cv-18786 [Docket 1]).
Trial began on October 31, 2014, before the Honorable Irene C. Berger, United States District Judge for the Southern District of West Virginia.3 After eleven days of trial, the plaintiffs ultimately presented four claims to the jury: strict liability for defective design; strict liability for failure to warn; negligence; and punitive damages. (Verdict Form for Jeanie Blankenship [Docket 522]; Verdict Form for Carol Campbell [Docket 530]; Verdict Form for Chris Wilson [Docket 534]).4 The jury returned a verdict in favor of the plaintiffs on all claims. In so doing, the jury awarded the following damages:
At the conclusion of the plaintiffs' case, BSC orally moved for judgment as a matter of law on each claim pursuant to Rule 50(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. (Trial Tr. (Nov. 12, 2014) [Docket 501], at 1210:12-14). Judge Berger granted the motion in part with respect to the issues of economic damages and breach of warranty and denied the motion with respect to negligence, strict liability, and punitive damages. (Trial Tr. (Nov. 17, 2014) [Docket 504], at 1959:16-1960:9). Then, at the close of its case, BSC renewed its Rule 50(a) motion for judgment as a matter of law on the remaining claims, and Judge Berger reaffirmed her earlier ruling and denied the motion. (Trial Tr. (Nov. 18, 2014) [Docket 541], at 2202:15-18, 2205:15-25). I now consider BSC's Renewed Motion for Judgment as a Matter of Law ("BSC's Renewed Motion") [Docket 581] pursuant to Rule 50(b), along with its Motion for New Trials [Docket 579] under Rule 59.
Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 50(a), a court may grant judgment as a matter of law "[i]f a party has been fully heard on an issue during a jury trial and the court finds that a reasonable jury would not have a legally sufficient evidentiary basis to find for the party on that issue." Fed. R. Civ. P. 50(a). When considering a party's motion for judgment as a matter of law, the court must "view the evidence in the light most favorable" to the non-moving party and "draw all reasonable inferences in his favor without weighing the evidence or assessing the witnesses' credibility." Baynard v. Malone, 268 F.3d 228, 234-35 (4th Cir. 2001). Judgment as a matter of law is inappropriate if a reasonable jury could find in favor of the non-moving party. Id. at 235.On the other hand, a court may grant judgment as a matter of law if the "evidence presented supports only one reasonable conclusion as to the verdict." Bank of Montreal v. Signet Bank, 193 F.3d 818, 831 (4th Cir. 1999).
Rule 50 also states that "[i]f the court does not grant a motion for judgment as a matter of law made under Rule 50(a), the court is considered to have submitted the action to the jury subject to the court's later deciding the legal questions raised by the motion." Fed. R. Civ. P. 50(b). After the matter is submitted to the jury, the Rules allow a movant to file a renewed motion for judgment as a matter of law. Id. "When a jury verdict has been returned, judgment as a matter of law may be granted only if, viewing the evidence in a light most favorable to the non-moving party (and in support of the jury's verdict) and drawing every legitimate inference in that party's favor, the only conclusion a reasonable jury could have reached is one in favor of the moving party." Int'l Ground Transp. v. Mayor & City Council of Ocean City, Md., 475 F.3d 214, 218-19 (4th Cir. 2007).
While courts should not simply rubber stamp a jury's verdict, judgment as a matter of law is a remedy to be applied sparingly and only in the most extraordinary circumstances. 9B Charles Wright & Arthur Miller, Federal Practice and Procedure § 2524 (3d ed. 2008); see also, e.g., Sawyer v. Asbury, 861 F. Supp. 2d 737, 743-44 (S.D. W. Va. 2012) (), aff'd, 537 F.App'x 283 (4th Cir. 2013). Put simply, a court "may not disturb the [jury] verdict where there was sufficient evidence for a...
To continue reading
Request your trial