Normandy v. American Medical Systems, Inc.
Case Details
- Judge(s)
- Robinson; McDonald; D’Auria; Mullins; Kahn; Ecker; Keller
- Status — whether other courts must follow this ruling
- Published
- Procedural Posture — the stage the case had reached
- Appeal from summary judgment
Related Laws
No specific laws identified for this ruling.
Outcome
Trial court granted defendant hospital's summary judgment motion, finding plaintiff failed to establish product liability claim and that CUTPA and common-law claims were time-barred under Connecticut statutes of limitations and repose.
Excerpt
The plaintiffs, D and M, sought to recover damages from the defendant B Co. for its alleged negligence, recklessness, and civil conspiracy, and for its alleged violations of the Connecticut Unfair Trade Practices Act (CUTPA) (§ 42-110a et seq.) and the Connecticut Product Liability Act (§ 52-572m et seq.), in connection with a surgical procedure performed at B Co.'s hospital. Specifically, in 2009, D's obstetrician and gynecologist implanted a mesh sling manufactured by the defendant A Co. in D's body for the purpose of treating her stress urinary incontinence. Although D's obstetrician and gynecologist was not an employee of B Co., she has privileges to practice at B Co.'s hospital, where the procedure occurred. The sling implanted in D was stocked by B Co.'s hospital at the request of some of the physicians who have privileges there, and B Co. paid A Co. $900 for the sling and then billed D's health insurance carrier $4230 for it. In 2014, D was diagnosed with ''mesh exposure'' and had the sling removed. In 2015, the plaintiffs commenced this action against A Co. and B Co. but subsequently withdrew their claims against A Co. The plaintiffs alleged, inter alia, that B Co. had engaged in the business of placing A Co.'s slings into the stream of commerce by purchasing them from A Co., stocking and marketing them, and selling them to patients and medical professionals. The trial court granted B Co.'s motion for summary judgment, concluding that the plaintiffs' prod- uct liability claim failed because B Co. was not a product seller and that the plaintiffs' CUTPA and common-law claims were time barred under the three year statutes (§§ 42-110g (f), 52-577 and 52-584) of limitations and repose. The trial court also determined that the limitation and repose periods had not been tolled by either the continuing course of conduct or the fraudulent concealment doctrine. On the plaintiffs' appeal, held: 1. The trial court correctly concluded that there was no genuine issue of m
What This Ruling Means
This summary was generated to explain the ruling in plain English and is not legal advice.
More Rulings in This Case
Other orders and opinions in Normandy from the same court.
Similar Rulings
Browse Related
Facing something similar at work?
Court rulings like this one are useful, but every situation is different. Take 2 minutes to see which laws may protect you — it's free, private, and no account is required to start.
This ruling information is sourced from public court records via CourtListener.com. Case outcomes, claim types, and summaries are extracted using AI analysis and may be incomplete or inaccurate. It is provided for informational and educational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice.
See something wrong, or named in this ruling and want it corrected or redacted? Request a correction.