Morcellator Manufacturers Oppose Lawsuit Consolidation As New Claims Mount, Tracey & Fox Reports

July 30, 2015 – – With more than twenty power morcellator lawsuits already filed in Federal Courts, a group of Plaintiffs have asked the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation to consolidate the claims for pretrial proceedings. “Consolidation would eliminate redundant or divergent rulings made by multiple judges acting independently of one another,” says Sean Tracey, Esq., managing partner at Tracey & Fox, a firm currently counseling women who believe that a power morcellator spread undetected cases of uterine cancer.

Morcellators, non-invasive medical devices used to grind fibroid and uterine tissue, first came to widespread attention in April of 2014. That month, the US Food & Drug Administration released one of its most sweeping safety warnings to date: announcing that the spinning blade of a power morcellator can spread undiagnosed uterine sarcomas and discouraging the device’s use in most female patients. “The risks of morcellation were thought to be extremely low,” Tracey reports, “but an FDA analysis of existing medical literature revealed that as many as 1 out of every 350 women undergoing a procedure may be at risk of harboring a uterine cancer. Once it’s cut into by the blade of a morcellator, a stage 1 cancer goes to stage 4 in an instant.”

Patients who had been diagnosed with an “upstaged” uterine cancer after undergoing a hysterectomy or myomectomy began filing product liability lawsuits soon after. As the lawsuits accumulated, many legal experts saw Multidistrict Litigation, or MDL, on the horizon. “When a growing number of claims bring similar allegations against Defendants, MDL is the usual direction taken by the court system,” Tracey said, adding that consolidation can make both pretrial proceedings and the process of filing new claims more efficient.

But Plaintiff’s request to consolidate has seen some pushback from the Defendants. In four separately-filed briefs submitted on July 10, 2015, Johnson & Johnson1, Karl Storz GmbH2, Richard Wolf GmbH3 and Gyrus ACMI4 oppose the idea, arguing there are too few claims, filed against too many different companies to warrant consolidation. Johnson & Johnson contends that each lawsuit’s Discovery phase, in which Defendant and Plaintiff obtain evidence from one another, will be so specific to each Plaintiff’s situation that conducting a coordinated Discovery across claims would be counter-productive.

According to Tracey, at least one new morcellator lawsuit has been filed since the four Defendants voiced their misgivings over consolidation. He says that in Federal Courts, Johnson & Johnson currently faces 16 morcellator lawsuits, Karl Storz faces 5, and Richard Wolf and Gyrus ACMI both face 1, although a dozen additional morcellator claims may be filed in state courts.

Tracey & Fox is providing free consultations to women who believe that a power morcellator may have spread or “upstaged” a previously-undiagnosed uterine cancer. For more information, call 713.495.2333.

1. In Re: Power Morcellator Litigation, MDL 2652, doc. 36 (J.P.M.L. 2015)

2. In Re: Power Morcellator Litigation, MDL 2652, doc. 11 (J.P.M.L. 2015)

3. In Re: Power Morcellator Litigation, MDL 2652, doc. 12 (J.P.M.L. 2015)

4. In Re: Power Morcellator Litigation, MDL 2652, doc. 41 (J.P.M.L. 2015)

###

Contact Tracey & Fox:

Sean Tracey
713-495-2333
440 Louisiana Street , Suite 1901
Houston, TX 77002

ReleaseID: 60003136