Products Liability Law Reporter

A federal district court granted Ethicon, Inc., and Johnson & Johnson’s motion to bifurcate a pelvic mesh trial on limitations grounds.

Paula Houck and her husband sued Ethicon, Inc., and Johnson & Johnson, seeking damages for injuries Houck allegedly suffered after she received a TVT-O to treat stress urinary incontinence. The plaintiffs alleged claims for negligent failure to warn, strict liability design defect, common law fraud, fraudulent concealment, negligent misrepresentation, gross negligence, and loss of consortium. The case was consolidated with others into MDL 2327 in the U.S. district court for the Southern District of West Virginia and then transferred to a Maryland district court. Ethicon moved for summary judgment, arguing that Maryland’s three-year limitations statute barred the plaintiffs’ claims. Ethicon also moved to bifurcate the trial on limitations grounds.

Granting the bifurcation motion, the district court noted that courts have broad discretion in deciding whether to bifurcate claims for trial. The court also said that the viability of the plaintiffs’ claims depends on whether they are time-barred. Noting that other courts in pelvic mesh suits against Ethicon have bifurcated trials on limitations grounds, the court found that in the interest of efficiency, bifurcation was warranted here. After the limitations issue is decided, the court said, the issue of liability will be tried, if necessary.

Citation: Houck v. Ethicon, Inc., 2024 WL 243395 (D. Md. Jan. 1, 2024).