United States: Summary Judgment For All Pending Cases In The Mirena MDL

Last Updated: August 3 2016
Article by Eric Alexander

We often lament, in our curmudgeonly way, that plaintiffs in obviously lacking cases get chance after chance to keep going, all the while imposing costs and risks on the defendants and a burdens on court dockets.  Plaintiffs tend to get three strikes on complaints that fail to plead cognizable claims or cannot help but plead right into a clear defense.  Plaintiffs are sometimes allowed to offer extra experts after Daubert wipes out their first wave or two.  Summary judgment is denied on the pretense that a jury could find for the plaintiff based on tenuous and speculative liability or causation arguments.  The reality, particularly in cases where hundreds or thousands of plaintiffs sue over the same drug or device, is that the calculus of the number of pending cases, the time they have been pending, and the proximity to trial plays into the likelihood of large settlements.  Even where the manufacturer has good reason to believe that the cases against it should not succeed, the cost of pursuing them to the bitter end can weigh in favor of paying to settle cases.  So, when we see a drug or device manufacturer take a litigation to its end (or the end for one of the major fronts), we applaud its determination.

For the In re Mirena IUD Products Liability Litigation MDL, the litigation looks to be fairly short-lived as far as such litigations go.  In April 2013, the JPML consolidated cases because of the common issues of "the alleged risks of uterine perforation and migration associated with Mirena and the adequacy of the product's warning label."  In less than three years, the parties did fact discovery, selected bellwether cases, did expert discovery, and filed dueling Daubert motions.  We discussed the lengthy ruling on those motions here, noting that the court "was not afraid to shut down entire theories on which the plaintiffs based their claims."  All of the plaintiffs with pending cases after the Daubert decision apparently agreed that their cases required them to prove that the product can cause "secondary perforation"—definition discussed below—which was something the plaintiffs' experts could not support with admissible opinions.  The plaintiffs also agreed that the product liability law of each of their home jurisdictions generally required admissible expert evidence on general causation.  In opposing defendant's motion for summary judgment, plaintiffs offered two arguments:  1) the injury here makes general causation something that the jury can decide without supporting expert testimony from plaintiff despite the general requirement; and 2) a series of purported admissions from the product's label and elsewhere can establish general causation.  In rejecting both arguments, the court was up front that it was doing so "reluctantly, knowing that it will doom hundreds of cases," which showed as each proffered decision and statement was analyzed patiently. In re Mirena IUD Prods. Liab. Litig., Nos. 13-MD-2434 (CS), 13-MC-2434 (CS), 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 99221, **67-68 (S.D.N.Y. July 28, 2016).  We, of course, have no such reluctance in seeing the decision as correct and the basis for bringing the cases as dubious from the start.

The product at issue is a combination drug-device approved for contraception with a label that always warned of perforation of the uterus or cervix.  Specifically, when the product was approved, it said "An IUD may perforate the uterus or cervix, most often during insertion although the perforation may not be detected until some time later" and, in the years leading up to the establishment of the MDL, it said "Perforation or penetration of the uterine wall or cervix may occur during insertion although the perforation may not be detected until some time later." Id. at *7.  In 2014, this was changed to "Perforation (total or partial, including penetration/embedment of Mirena in the uterine wall or cervix) may occur most often during insertion, although the perforation may not be detected until sometime later." Id. at **7-8.  Plaintiffs contended that there is a risk of "secondary perforation," where the product starts to move through tissue after insertion when the insertion procedure produced no injury, and that the labels—at least when they were prescribed the product—inadequately warned of that risk.  Those versed in product liability cases should see some immediate problems with plaintiffs' positions.  If what they claim happened to them was just a perforation that began or progressed after insertion, then the label always warned of that.  If what they claim happened to them was different than something set in motion by injuries sustained during the insertion process, then it would be hard to ever rule out that an injury during insertion progressed over time and was detected later.  In either case, it would be hard to see how plaintiffs would prove that a relevant different warning was required and would have changed anything a prescribing physician would have done or how plaintiffs would dispute that FDA would not have accepted such a different warning.  In other words, this looks like a very weak warnings claim.  The manufacturer, by contrast, took the simple position that there is no "secondary perforation"—rather, perforations always start with some injury during insertion—and there was never a need to say more about a non-existent risk.  The Daubert ruling held, in part, that plaintiffs' experts' opinions that there was a risk of "secondary perforation" were unreliable.  Unless plaintiffs could prove general causation for "secondary perforation" without admissible expert testimony, they would be unable to prove any claim.  Lack of proof of a risk means the warning cannot be inadequate and that an individual plaintiff's alleged injury cannot be linked to a risk of the product.  (Based upon the broader allegations suggested by the JPML order and the narrow issues presented in summary judgment, it must be that plaintiffs originally pursued other theories of liability but recognized that they were all dead ends.)

Plaintiffs' attempt to argue that they did not really need experts to establish general causation was hampered by the facts that they had named experts to opine on general causation and opposed Daubert by arguing that the jury needed expert testimony to understand the issues here. Id. at *20.  We will not belabor it, but the court walked through extensive authority that drug and medical device causation requires expert testimony because it is beyond the understanding of lay jurors and they should not be invited to speculate.  Thus, when plaintiffs offered the disingenuous claim that these were "simple soft-tissue cases that do not require experts for general causation," we would not have been surprised if the response had been the judicial equivalent of a laugh. Id. at **20-21.  Instead, the court reasoned that "an analysis of the anatomy and physiology of the uterus, the strength of its muscles, the types of injuries that could be caused by the Mirena insertion procedure, and whether and how such injuries can be detected with existing technology" would be "well beyond the common understanding of lay jurors," meaning that expert on general causation testimony would be required. Id. at **22-23.  Rather than rule that expert testimony on general causation would be required for all device cases under the law of every state, the court had "no serious doubt that all jurisdictions would treat this issue as one requiring expert testimony to prove causation." Id. at *24.

Because plaintiffs did not have expert testimony to prove causation, the court might have stopped there.  Instead, it devoted lots of ink to rejecting the argument that a series purported party admissions under 801(d)(2) can substitute for the required expert proof.  This logically has two parts:  1) "whether as a matter of substantive products liability law admissions can substitute for expert evidence of causation" and 2) whether the statements that plaintiffs offered were actually admissions on general causation for "secondary perforation."  Again, the court did not lay down a blanket rule that admissions could never suffice.  After walking through every case plaintiff cited with a level of detail we will not repeat—but would be worth a read if a similar issue comes up in your case—the court noted:  "None of these cases hold what Plaintiffs wish the Court to hold here:  that a defendant's admission can substitute for expert testimony on general causation." Id. at *40.  As such, the court avowed that it would not be the first to so hold, but it—again, consistent with its avowed reluctance—noted that any admission allowed to substitute for expert testimony would need to be "the clearest and most unambiguous admission that the product or device in question can cause the alleged injury." Id. at **41-42 & 44.  They would also need to satisfy the reliability requirements of Rule 702.

The statements here did not come close.  "The alleged admissions offered by Plaintiffs here do not suffice, because they are not clear or concrete or detailed enough either individually or collectively, to permit a jury to consider intelligently the existence, or not, of secondary perforation." Id. at *45.  Still, the court walked through each purported admission with far more patience than we will have in recounting them.  First, plaintiff said that the statement in another company's IUD's label that "Partial or total perforation of the uterus may occur at the time of or after [the product's] insertion" was somehow adopted by the manufacturer from the approval process.  But it was rejected, rather than adopted, by the proposal of different language for its own product and it did not acknowledge that secondary perforation occurs anyway.  Second, in what strikes us as supremely disingenuous, plaintiffs contended that the 2014 label was an admission because it suggested that some perforations could happen after insertion.  But it did not acknowledge that "secondary perforation," as plaintiffs defined it to get around always having an adequate warning, existed.  We will just quote the rest on this:

Plaintiffs argue that it should be up to the jury to assess the meaning of Defendants' statements, but the problem is that in the absence of expert testimony, the jury would have no scientific basis on which to do so, and would doing just what the requirement of expert testimony is designed to avoid: speculating about a complex medical process without any specialized information with which to make an intelligent decision as to whether it capable of causing Plaintiffs' injuries.

Id. at *52 (citations omitted).  Third, labeling language for another of the manufacturer's IUDs that was very similar to the 2014 label's language was also not an admission about "secondary perforation."  Fourth, language in a letter to health care providers in Canada that "Uterine perforation may occur with Mirena at the time of insertion or after the insertion with limited clinical symptoms" was not an admission of "secondary perforation"—and would have been hard to reconcile with plaintiffs' position that similar language in the U.S. label from 2008 on was inadequate.  Fifth, various emails discussing reports of late perforations did not adopt the position that "secondary perforations" occur.  Sixth, and perhaps closest, was a powerpoint presentation that had a bullet point saying "Migration into the abdomen (spontaneous perforation unrelated to insertion) can occur."  In context, however, it was not clear that this was describing plaintiffs' precise version of "secondary perforation" or that it was endorsing that it happens as opposed to that it had been reported. Id. at **62-63.  Last, plaintiffs pointed to two pages of testimony from the deposition of one company witness about a hypothetical situation where movement of the device was possible, but he was 99% sure that there would need to be injury with insertion to start the movement. Id. at *64.  So, that was not a pertinent admission either.  "With all of these alleged admissions, a jury would have to read between the lines to discern the speaker's intended meaning, with any scientific or other basis to sort out the ambiguities." Id. at *65.

With all that, plaintiffs had nothing to show they could carry their burden on general causation and summary judgment was appropriate as to about 1300 cases.  We cannot help but note that this is yet another in a series of plaintiff losses on dispositive motions in contraceptive cases.  If this is the best plaintiffs can do with this product, then we hope to hear about the state litigation coming to a similar conclusion soon.  Maybe the plaintiff bar's seemingly reflexive desire to gather up cases and sue over just about every new contraceptive to be approved will be suppressed at least somewhat going forward.

This article is presented for informational purposes only and is not intended to constitute legal advice.

To print this article, all you need is to be registered on Mondaq.com.

Click to Login as an existing user or Register so you can print this article.

Authors
 
In association with
Related Video
Up-coming Events Search
Tools
Print
Font Size:
Translation
Channels
Mondaq on Twitter
 
Register for Access and our Free Biweekly Alert for
This service is completely free. Access 250,000 archived articles from 100+ countries and get a personalised email twice a week covering developments (and yes, our lawyers like to think you’ve read our Disclaimer).
 
Email Address
Company Name
Password
Confirm Password
Position
Mondaq Topics -- Select your Interests
 Accounting
 Anti-trust
 Commercial
 Compliance
 Consumer
 Criminal
 Employment
 Energy
 Environment
 Family
 Finance
 Government
 Healthcare
 Immigration
 Insolvency
 Insurance
 International
 IP
 Law Performance
 Law Practice
 Litigation
 Media & IT
 Privacy
 Real Estate
 Strategy
 Tax
 Technology
 Transport
 Wealth Mgt
Regions
Africa
Asia
Asia Pacific
Australasia
Canada
Caribbean
Europe
European Union
Latin America
Middle East
U.K.
United States
Worldwide Updates
Check to state you have read and
agree to our Terms and Conditions

Terms & Conditions and Privacy Statement

Mondaq.com (the Website) is owned and managed by Mondaq Ltd and as a user you are granted a non-exclusive, revocable license to access the Website under its terms and conditions of use. Your use of the Website constitutes your agreement to the following terms and conditions of use. Mondaq Ltd may terminate your use of the Website if you are in breach of these terms and conditions or if Mondaq Ltd decides to terminate your license of use for whatever reason.

Use of www.mondaq.com

You may use the Website but are required to register as a user if you wish to read the full text of the content and articles available (the Content). You may not modify, publish, transmit, transfer or sell, reproduce, create derivative works from, distribute, perform, link, display, or in any way exploit any of the Content, in whole or in part, except as expressly permitted in these terms & conditions or with the prior written consent of Mondaq Ltd. You may not use electronic or other means to extract details or information about Mondaq.com’s content, users or contributors in order to offer them any services or products which compete directly or indirectly with Mondaq Ltd’s services and products.

Disclaimer

Mondaq Ltd and/or its respective suppliers make no representations about the suitability of the information contained in the documents and related graphics published on this server for any purpose. All such documents and related graphics are provided "as is" without warranty of any kind. Mondaq Ltd and/or its respective suppliers hereby disclaim all warranties and conditions with regard to this information, including all implied warranties and conditions of merchantability, fitness for a particular purpose, title and non-infringement. In no event shall Mondaq Ltd and/or its respective suppliers be liable for any special, indirect or consequential damages or any damages whatsoever resulting from loss of use, data or profits, whether in an action of contract, negligence or other tortious action, arising out of or in connection with the use or performance of information available from this server.

The documents and related graphics published on this server could include technical inaccuracies or typographical errors. Changes are periodically added to the information herein. Mondaq Ltd and/or its respective suppliers may make improvements and/or changes in the product(s) and/or the program(s) described herein at any time.

Registration

Mondaq Ltd requires you to register and provide information that personally identifies you, including what sort of information you are interested in, for three primary purposes:

  • To allow you to personalize the Mondaq websites you are visiting.
  • To enable features such as password reminder, newsletter alerts, email a colleague, and linking from Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) to your website.
  • To produce demographic feedback for our information providers who provide information free for your use.

Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) do not sell or provide your details to third parties other than information providers. The reason we provide our information providers with this information is so that they can measure the response their articles are receiving and provide you with information about their products and services.

If you do not want us to provide your name and email address you may opt out by clicking here .

If you do not wish to receive any future announcements of products and services offered by Mondaq by clicking here .

Information Collection and Use

We require site users to register with Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) to view the free information on the site. We also collect information from our users at several different points on the websites: this is so that we can customise the sites according to individual usage, provide 'session-aware' functionality, and ensure that content is acquired and developed appropriately. This gives us an overall picture of our user profiles, which in turn shows to our Editorial Contributors the type of person they are reaching by posting articles on Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) – meaning more free content for registered users.

We are only able to provide the material on the Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) site free to site visitors because we can pass on information about the pages that users are viewing and the personal information users provide to us (e.g. email addresses) to reputable contributing firms such as law firms who author those pages. We do not sell or rent information to anyone else other than the authors of those pages, who may change from time to time. Should you wish us not to disclose your details to any of these parties, please tick the box above or tick the box marked "Opt out of Registration Information Disclosure" on the Your Profile page. We and our author organisations may only contact you via email or other means if you allow us to do so. Users can opt out of contact when they register on the site, or send an email to unsubscribe@mondaq.com with “no disclosure” in the subject heading

Mondaq News Alerts

In order to receive Mondaq News Alerts, users have to complete a separate registration form. This is a personalised service where users choose regions and topics of interest and we send it only to those users who have requested it. Users can stop receiving these Alerts by going to the Mondaq News Alerts page and deselecting all interest areas. In the same way users can amend their personal preferences to add or remove subject areas.

Cookies

A cookie is a small text file written to a user’s hard drive that contains an identifying user number. The cookies do not contain any personal information about users. We use the cookie so users do not have to log in every time they use the service and the cookie will automatically expire if you do not visit the Mondaq website (or its affiliate sites) for 12 months. We also use the cookie to personalise a user's experience of the site (for example to show information specific to a user's region). As the Mondaq sites are fully personalised and cookies are essential to its core technology the site will function unpredictably with browsers that do not support cookies - or where cookies are disabled (in these circumstances we advise you to attempt to locate the information you require elsewhere on the web). However if you are concerned about the presence of a Mondaq cookie on your machine you can also choose to expire the cookie immediately (remove it) by selecting the 'Log Off' menu option as the last thing you do when you use the site.

Some of our business partners may use cookies on our site (for example, advertisers). However, we have no access to or control over these cookies and we are not aware of any at present that do so.

Log Files

We use IP addresses to analyse trends, administer the site, track movement, and gather broad demographic information for aggregate use. IP addresses are not linked to personally identifiable information.

Links

This web site contains links to other sites. Please be aware that Mondaq (or its affiliate sites) are not responsible for the privacy practices of such other sites. We encourage our users to be aware when they leave our site and to read the privacy statements of these third party sites. This privacy statement applies solely to information collected by this Web site.

Surveys & Contests

From time-to-time our site requests information from users via surveys or contests. Participation in these surveys or contests is completely voluntary and the user therefore has a choice whether or not to disclose any information requested. Information requested may include contact information (such as name and delivery address), and demographic information (such as postcode, age level). Contact information will be used to notify the winners and award prizes. Survey information will be used for purposes of monitoring or improving the functionality of the site.

Mail-A-Friend

If a user elects to use our referral service for informing a friend about our site, we ask them for the friend’s name and email address. Mondaq stores this information and may contact the friend to invite them to register with Mondaq, but they will not be contacted more than once. The friend may contact Mondaq to request the removal of this information from our database.

Security

This website takes every reasonable precaution to protect our users’ information. When users submit sensitive information via the website, your information is protected using firewalls and other security technology. If you have any questions about the security at our website, you can send an email to webmaster@mondaq.com.

Correcting/Updating Personal Information

If a user’s personally identifiable information changes (such as postcode), or if a user no longer desires our service, we will endeavour to provide a way to correct, update or remove that user’s personal data provided to us. This can usually be done at the “Your Profile” page or by sending an email to EditorialAdvisor@mondaq.com.

Notification of Changes

If we decide to change our Terms & Conditions or Privacy Policy, we will post those changes on our site so our users are always aware of what information we collect, how we use it, and under what circumstances, if any, we disclose it. If at any point we decide to use personally identifiable information in a manner different from that stated at the time it was collected, we will notify users by way of an email. Users will have a choice as to whether or not we use their information in this different manner. We will use information in accordance with the privacy policy under which the information was collected.

How to contact Mondaq

You can contact us with comments or queries at enquiries@mondaq.com.

If for some reason you believe Mondaq Ltd. has not adhered to these principles, please notify us by e-mail at problems@mondaq.com and we will use commercially reasonable efforts to determine and correct the problem promptly.