Published on:

Judge Threatens Sanctions Against Transvaginal Mesh Plaintiffs’ Lawyers

Transvaginal Mesh MDLLet me get right to it: Judge Clay Land has a point. On September 7, 2016, Judge Land issued a blistering Order in the Mentor Corporation ObTape Transobturator Sling Mesh multi-district litigation. In a nutshell, he wrote that he was fed up with frivolous claims. Judge Land stated that he will consider money sanctions against plaintiffs’ lawyers who file and pursue lawsuits in the MDL that they know have no merit or which suffer from some fatal flaw. A fatal flaw could be the passing of the statute of limitations, or the failure to find an expert who can testify that the transvaginal mesh product caused the specific injuries to the plaintiff. In those cases, Judge Land writes, the plaintiffs’ lawyers ought to know better, and should not bring the claim in the first place, or should at the very least dismiss the action when the lawyer discovers a flaw in the case which is fatal to gaining a recovery.

The worst transgression identified by Judge Land is when the product manufacturer seeks “summary judgment” in a particular case and the plaintiff’s attorney simply throws in the towel on the case and does not even bother to show up for the court hearing. In those cases, even though the plaintiff is inevitably going to lose the case, the judge and the law clerks and court personnel and defense attorneys still have to show up and do the work of handling and deciding the motion.

Attorneys Should Never Abandon a Case

This is not right. Plaintiffs’ attorneys should never abandon a case. If the case is fatally flawed and everyone knows it, the attorney must inform the client and has an obligation to dismiss the lawsuit. I understand Judge Land’s frustration for these clearly weak or abandoned cases. There are many reasons this behavior is bad for the legal system: it takes up time and money unnecessarily; it puts the client in a bad position with the court; and it also makes product liability lawyers look bad.

The Order

Judge Land, who oversees the Mentor Corp. Mesh MDL in federal court in Georgia, has been handling several motions for summary judgment over the past year. He has dismissed many actions based on the passing of the statute of limitations and for other reasons. He seems quite tired of it. He wrote that lawyers for plaintiffs in the MDL “are on notice that in future orders granting summary judgment in which no good faith basis existed for maintaining the action through the summary judgment stage, the Court intends to include an addendum in the order requiring counsel to show cause why sanctions should not be imposed. Thus, it would behoove counsel to take a close look at your cases and decide whether you truly have a good faith basis for proceeding; and if you do not, dismiss the case.” You can read the full order here.

Let’s unpack this. Judge Land is unambiguously issuing a strong warning to plaintiffs’ lawyers who do not closely scrutinize their cases and who fail to ensure that a fatal flaw does not exist in their cases. Quick example: let’s say there is a absolute deadline for identifying a medical expert who will testify that the transvaginal mesh injured the client. And let’s say that the lawyer let that deadline pass without finding a suitable expert. The lawyer must take immediate action: either he must file a motion requesting an extension of time to identify the expert, or he must dismiss the case without prejudice, or he must dismiss the case outright. Doing nothing is bad.

But Wait a Minute!

Now, a “good faith basis” for continuing a case is often in the eye of the beholder. And there are times when the passing of the statute of limitations is not at all clear. And sometimes it is the product manufacturer itself who makes the limitations period difficult to calculate.

A statute of limitations is a law which limits the period of time when you can bring a lawsuit for money damages for an injury. In each state you have a certain number of years from the date of injury, or the date of discovery of the injury, to file a lawsuit and recover money for your injuries. If you miss this deadline, you lose your right to bring the lawsuit forever.

Statute of limitations

But when does the clock begin to run? Let’s say you are a woman who received a transvaginal mesh implant. After a few months you began feeling new pains and other unpleasant symptoms. But the manufacturer kept insisting to everyone–the media, doctors, patients–that the TVM product was safe and effective. You visit your doctor and she says, “the manufacturer is saying the mesh is safe, so your pains must be coming from some other problem.” In that case (and it is very common) how can this injured woman know she has a valid claim against the manufacturer? The fights over statutes of limitation are often fierce, as I write about here. And they should be. If the defense wins the argument, the defendant has to pay no money for what might be a real injury to a real person. The plaintiff has ever right to fight back against this SOL defense. And should.

And I guess that is Judge Land’s point: if you are the lawyer for the plaintiff and you are facing a summary judgment motion, show up, make your case, fight for your client. Don’t abandon the client, and don’t leave a case behind you know to be fatally flawed. I agree.

Woman suffering from transvaginal mesh injury

But I also believe that judges need to be mindful of the unfair fight injured people face. No person injured by transvaginal mesh, or a failed artificial hip or knee, or an untested drug, can compete with the power and resources of a major corporation. I would like all plaintiffs’ lawyers to handle their cases competently, but I also would like to see judges give an injured person the benefit of the doubt in the face of this uphill struggle. After all, nowhere in Judge Land’s order does he say that these plaintiffs who lose summary judgment were not injured by the negligence of the manufacturer. Rather, the person was simply unable to pursue her claims based on a legal or technical defense.

In re Mentor Corp. ObTape Transobturator Sling Products Liability Litigation, No. 4:08-MD-2004 (M.D. Ga.)