Plaintiff's Claims Not Saved By Discovery Rule; Statute of Limitations Applied

In the case of Tily v. Ethicon, Inc., No. 20-2582 (E.D. Pa. Sept. 8, 2020 Quinones Alejandro, J.), the court granted summary judgment in a claim arising out of allegations of liability due to complaints of years of pain and other complications following a pelvic mesh implant surgery. The court found that the Plaintiff’s claims were barred by the statute of limitations and that the Plaintiff’s claims were not saved by the discovery rule. 

The court found that the Plaintiff failed to prove the applicability of the discovery rule. The record revealed to the court that, had the Plaintiff been reasonably diligent, she would have discussed her years of pain and other complications with her doctor. 

It was also noted that, more than two (2) years before suing, the Plaintiff had attributed her problems to the Defendant’s product and had already undergone revision surgery. 

The court found that, as a matter of law, these facts placed the Plaintiff on notice that she should conduct a further inquiry of her injuries and investigate the cause of the same, which the Plaintiff did not do. 

The court also noted that, despite the fact that there was publicly available information on the implant device, the Plaintiff never sought out more information. 

The court additionally rejected any claims of fraudulent concealment asserted against the Defendant. The court found no evidence in the record of any affirmative acts on the part of the Defendant to conceal from the Plaintiff her right to pursue a recovery. 

Anyone wishing to review a copy of this decision may click this LINK.  The Order can be viewed HERE.

I send thanks to Attorney James M. Beck of the Philadelphia office of the Reed Smith law firm for bringing this case to my attention.