Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca6-13-01469/USCOURTS-ca6-13-01469-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
DCC Litigation Facility, Incorporated
Appellee
Kathy Jean Gatza
Appellant

Document Text:

NOT RECOMMENDED FOR FULL-TEXT PUBLICATION

File Name: 15a0488n.06

No. 13-1469

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT

In re: DOW CORNING CORPORATION,

Reorganized Debtor.

_________________________________________

KATHY JEAN GATZA,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

v.

DCC LITIGATION FACILITY, 

INCORPORATED,

Defendant-Appellee.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

ON APPEAL FROM THE UNITED 

STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR 

THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF 

MICHIGAN

Before: SUHRHEINRICH, ROGERS, and GRIFFIN, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM. Kathy Jean Gatza, a Wisconsin citizen proceeding pro se, appeals the 

district court’s grant of summary judgment in favor of DCC Litigation Facility, Inc. (DCC), 

based on untimeliness. 

Gatza received silicone breast implants in 1984 and had them removed in 1992. The 

implant procedures took place in Wisconsin, where Gatza resides. Approximately two months 

after receiving the silicone implants, Gatza began to experience swelling, stiffness, and pain in 

her hands and feet, and she was diagnosed with rheumatoid arthritis in July 1984. According to 

 Case: 13-1469 Document: 36-2 Filed: 07/07/2015 Page: 1
No. 13-1469

- 2 -

Gatza, she now suffers from atypical connective tissue disease, rheumatoid arthritis, and 

fibromyalgia, all caused by the silicone implants. 

In 1992, Gatza filed a claim in the multidistrict breast implant litigation in the Northern 

District of Alabama. She opted out of the class settlement as to Dow Corning, who 

manufactured the raw silicone materials in her implants. In 1995, Dow Corning filed for 

bankruptcy in the Eastern District of Michigan, and Gatza filed a proof of claim in the 

bankruptcy proceeding. After settlement negotiations with Gatza failed, DCC moved to certify 

the case for trial. The district court certified the case, and Gatza filed a new complaint. DCC 

later filed five summary judgment motions, one of which argued that Gatza’s claims were barred 

by Michigan’s three-year statute of limitations for product liability actions or, alternatively, by 

the limitations period that would apply under Wisconsin law. 

The district court applied Michigan law and concluded that Gatza’s claims were timebarred, reasoning that the state’s limitations period does not include a discovery rule and that, as 

a result, “Gatza’s claim accrued at the time of implant in 1984.” The district court further 

concluded that Gatza’s claim would be untimely even if the discovery rule did apply because she 

became ill a few months after receiving the implants and attributed her illness to the breast 

implants. Accordingly, the district court granted DCC’s motion for summary judgment on that 

basis and declined to address its other arguments. 

We review de novo a district court’s decision to grant summary judgment. Lockett v. 

Suardini, 526 F.3d 866, 872 (6th Cir. 2008). Summary judgment is proper “if the movant shows 

that there is no genuine dispute as to any material fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as a 

matter of law.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(a).

 Case: 13-1469 Document: 36-2 Filed: 07/07/2015 Page: 2
No. 13-1469

- 3 -

In a recent decision involving another opt-out plaintiff, this court held that the district

court erred by applying Michigan law rather than the law of the plaintiff’s home state. 

Sutherland v. DCC Litig. Facility, Inc. (In re Dow Corning Corp.), No. 13-1497, 2015 WL 

716299, at *5 (6th Cir. Feb. 20, 2015) (holding that, when venue is transferred to a bankruptcy 

proceeding under 28 U.S.C. § 157(b)(5), the transferee court must apply the choice-of-law rules 

of the forum state to state-law tort claims). Sutherland does not control the outcome here 

because Gatza did not file suit in her state of residence, and her case was not transferred from the 

multidistrict litigation to the bankruptcy proceeding under § 157(b)(5). 

But as in Sutherland, the district court erred by applying Michigan law to Gatza’s claim. 

Both Michigan’s choice-of-law rules and “general equitable choice-of-law policies” favor 

application of Wisconsin law in this case. See In re Miller, 513 F. App’x 566, 572 (6th Cir. 

2013) (noting that the circuits are split on whether federal courts exercising bankruptcy 

jurisdiction should apply federal choice-of-law rules or those of the forum state). Although 

Michigan courts will presumptively apply Michigan law in tort actions, the presumption is 

overcome when, as here, another “state has a significant interest and Michigan has only a

minimal interest in the matter.” Hall v. Gen. Motors Corp., 582 N.W.2d 866, 868 (Mich. Ct. 

App. 1998); see Standard Fire Ins. Co. v. Ford Motor Co., 723 F.3d 690, 697-78 (6th Cir. 2013) 

(holding that, where plaintiff’s insured was a Tennessee resident who was injured in Tennessee, 

that state had a substantial interest in having its law applied). Application of federal choice-oflaw rules, which in this case are supplied by the Restatement (Second) of Conflicts of Law, leads 

to the same result. See DaimlerChrysler Corp. Healthcare Benefits Plan v. Durden, 448 F.3d 

918, 922 (6th Cir. 2006).

 Case: 13-1469 Document: 36-2 Filed: 07/07/2015 Page: 3
No. 13-1469

- 4 -

Wisconsin has a three-year statute of limitations for personal injury claims. Wis. Stat. 

Ann. § 893.54. Wisconsin courts apply a discovery rule to determine when a claim accrues: the 

statute of limitations does not begin to run “until the plaintiff discovers, or in the exercise of 

reasonable diligence should have discovered, not only the fact of injury but also that the injury 

was probably caused by the defendant’s conduct or product.” Borello v. U.S. Oil Co., 

388 N.W.2d 140, 146 (Wis. 1986). For purposes of the discovery rule, “discovery does not 

occur until there is information available to the claimant of the nature of her injury, the cause of 

her injury, and the defendant’s part in that cause.” Id. at 147.

The district court, while appearing to state that Wisconsin law is consistent with 

Michigan law, applied Michigan’s former discovery rule in the alternative. The application of 

Wisconsin law is briefed to us only by defendants. Our review will be enhanced by district court 

consideration of Wisconsin law in the first instance. Accordingly, we vacate the district court’s 

grant of summary judgment for DCC and remand the case to the district court for the court to 

apply Wisconsin law with respect to the time-bar issue and conduct.

 Case: 13-1469 Document: 36-2 Filed: 07/07/2015 Page: 4