Source: https://www.kugelherniameshclassaction.com/extended-statute-of-limitations-in-bard-hernia-mesh-lawsuits-in-rhode-island/
Timestamp: 2019-04-25 05:56:14+00:00

Document:
This long lasting, protracted and extended statute of limitations in Rhode Island is a game changer for certain hernia mesh victims. There is no doubt that certain hernia mesh victims in Rhode Island may have an extended period of time to file a mesh lawsuit.
Davol/C.R. Bard Composix Kugel Hernia Patch.” IN RE: DAVOL/ C.R. BARD HERNIA MESH PROCEDURAL ORDER NO. 1 From 2007 through May 1, 2017 a significant amount of hernia mesh lawsuits which “involved other Bard hernia products such as the Composix E/X Mesh, Ventralex Hernia Patch, Composix Hernia Patch, Kugel Hernia Patch, CK Parastomal Patch and Modified Kugel Patch” had been filed in Rhode Island State Courts. On May 5, 2017 the Providence Superior Court, “set up a multi-case management coordinated proceeding for all subsequent filings alleging personal injuries from Davol/C.R. Bard hernia mesh products. Administrative Order No. 2017-02.” Id.
Bard was a Rhode Island headquartered businesses, since recently. Therefore, the RI State Courts have personal jurisdiction over C. R. Bard. Therefore, all residents of the United States and certain other countries such as Canada and Mexico could potentially file a lawsuit in Providence Superior Court.
The Rhode Island statute of limitations will probably apply to these surgical mesh lawsuits.
Rhode Island has a very liberal, extended statute of limitations for defective medical device cases, including defective hernia mesh lawsuits.
The statute of limitations in defective product cases in Rhode Island and Providence Plantations must keep Bard executives up late at night. Does the statute of limitations ever expire under RI law? What is the statute of limitations in hernia mesh cases? What is the statute of limitations in product liability lawsuits in RI?
If a hernia mesh victim misses the hernia mesh deadline to file a mesh lawsuit then it is completely irrelevant what types of hernia mesh lawsuit settlement amounts other victims have received in 2017 or 2018. An abdominal hernia mesh lawsuit is a very serious matter and complications from hernia mesh can be devastating to a victim. Therefore, all victims must file hernia mesh lawsuits within the applicable hernia mesh staute of limitations. If you miss a mesh statute of limitations, you will be forever barred and precluded from obtaining a hernia mesh settlement 2018 or a mesh settlement 2019 or at any time. If you did not file a hernia mesh lawsuit 2017 you need to learn what you need to know before you file hernia mesh lawsuit. There were no reported hernia mesh lawsuit settlement amounts 2017 nor were there reported hernia mesh lawsuit settlement amounts 2016. Will there be a hernia mesh settlement 2018 or a hernia mesh settlement 2019? What about a pelvic mesh settlement?
What was the reasoning and public policy of the RI Supreme Court’s extended statute of limitations decision in Anthony V Abbott?
The Rhode Island Supreme Court stated three prime rationales for the extended statute of limitations.
An extended statute of limitations will motivate manufacturers to thoroughly test products before marketing for sale.
This extended statute of limitations is ok, because the statute begins to toll when a reasonable person should have known of the defendant’s wrongful conduct and this rule will not reward “foot dragging” on the behalf of the mesh manufacturers.
The RI Supreme Court’s reasoning for extending the statute of limitation in defective product cases was to motivate hernia mesh companies and other product manufacturers to provide more “thorough testing” before bringing a product to the market. In Abbot, the court declared, “In extending the discovery rule in drug product-liability actions until the plaintiff discovers or in reasonable diligence should have discovered the manufacturer’s wrongful conduct, we believe such a rule will encourage manufacturers to be more thorough in their testing before a product is placed on the market. If the manufacturers recognize that they will be subject to potential liability for a longer period after a product is linked to harmful effects, perhaps they will spend more time in the laboratory testing the product before it is marketed.” Id.
“Also, in forming a discovery rule that requires knowledge of wrongdoing, we feel that manufacturers acting in their own self-interest may take steps to begin the statute of limitations running and limit their liability by publicizing the effects of any product they manufactured that is linked to harmful effects. In this way, members of the public will be informed earlier and may be able to take action before their condition becomes severe.” Id.
What type of awareness of wrongful conduct is required?
“The defendants finally argue that the statute would never run under this rule because a determination of wrongful conduct is not made until trial. We do not believe this to be the case. The plaintiff does not have to be aware of all the elements of her legal cause of action before the statute begins to run. She has to have “some awareness, or imputed awareness, that her injuries were the result of some wrongdoing on the part of defendants.” Anthony v. Abbott Laboratories,490 A.2d 43, 45 (R.I. 1985) citing, Dawson v. Eli Lilly & Co., 543 F. Supp. at 1339.
What is the purpose of a statute of limitation?
REGINA RECINE, Plaintiff, v DAVOL INC. and C. R. BARD INC., Defendants.
manufactured, and distributed by Defendants.
On October 4, 2011, Plaintiff underwent an additional surgery to remove a portion of the Ventralex Patch. In July 2015, Plaintiff learned she needed a third surgery to remove another portion of the Ventralex Patch.
On July 13, 2017, Plaintiff filed a Complaint alleging she was severely and permanently injured as a result of the defective nature of the Ventralex Patch.” Id.
Ventralex Patch when a portion of the device was removed from Plaintiff’s body in October 2011, and therefore argued Plaintiff’s claims are time-barred.”Id.
The victim’s hernia mesh law firm argued that the lawsuit was filed timely within the statute of limitations because the surgical mesh victim “… did not learn of the Defendants’ wrongdoing in connection with the design, manufacture, and marketing of the Ventralex product until the end of 2016.” Id.
Justice Gibney of the Providence Superior Court ruled that the statute of limitations commences,”when the person discovers, or with reasonable diligence should have discovered, the wrongful conduct of the manufacturer.” The court determined “that the Plaintiff’s claims are not herein barred by the statute of limitations.”Id.
“General Laws 1956 (1969 Reenactment) § 9-1-13(b), as amended by P.L.1978, ch. 299, § 2, the statute of limitations that had applied to product-liability actions prior to 1984, was held unconstitutional in Kennedy v. Cumberland Engineering Co., 471 A.2d 195 (R.I.1984), because it completely denied a claimant access to the courts after ten years from the date the product was purchased, regardless of the merits of the claim. We held that this statute violated article 1, section 5, of the Rhode Island Constitution. Wilkinson, 104 R.I. at 238, 243 A.2d at 753.
Do similar rules apply to medical malpractice statute of limitations in Rhode Island?
“Generally, a cause of action accrues and the applicable statute of limitations begins to run at the time of the injury to the aggrieved party. Plouffe v. Goodyear Tire and Rubber Co., 118 R.I. 288, 293, 373 A.2d 492, 495 (1977); Romano v. Westinghouse Electric Co., 114 R.I. 451, 459, 336 A.2d 555, 559-60 (1975). In some “narrowly circumscribed factual situations,” Renaud v. Sigma-Aldrich Corp.,662 A.2d 711, 714 (R.I.1995), however, when the fact of the injury is unknown to the plaintiff when it occurs, the applicable statute of limitations will be tolled and will not begin to run until, in the exercise of reasonable diligence, the plaintiff should have discovered the injury or some injury-causing wrongful conduct. Compare Renaud v. Sigma-Aldrich Corp., 662 A.2d 711 (R.I.1995) (holding that, in a product liability case, statute of limitations began to run at the time of injury) with Anthony v. Abbott Laboratories, 490 A.2d 43 (R.I.1985) (holding that, in a drug product-liability case, the running of the statute of limitations begins when the plaintiff discovers, 300*300 or should have discovered, his or her injuries); Lee v. Morin, 469 A.2d 358 (R.I.1983); Wilkinson v. Harrington, 104 R.I. 224, 243 A.2d 745 (1968). The reasonable diligence standard is based upon the perception of a reasonable person placed in circumstances similar to the plaintiff’s, and also upon an objective assessment of whether such a person should have discovered that the defendant’s wrongful conduct had caused him or her to be injured. If a reasonable person in similar circumstances should have discovered that the wrongful conduct of the defendant caused her injuries as of some date before the plaintiff alleged that she made this discovery, then the earlier date will be used to start the running of the limitations period.” Martin v. Howard, 784 A.2d 291 (R.I. 2001) Anthony, 490 A.2d at 47.
“In Wilkinson, this Court held that a medical malpractice cause of action accrues when the plaintiff discovers or should have discovered that he/she has been injured as a result of the physician’s negligent treatment. This discovery rule later was codified in G.L.1956 § 9-1-14(b). In Lee,the Court held that the discovery rule applied to improvements in real estate, when the evidence of injury to property, resulting from the negligent act upon which the action is based, is sufficiently significant to alert the injured party to the possibility of a defect. 469 A.2d at 360. Again, in Anthony, we held that in a drug, product-liability action where the manifestation of an injury, the cause of that injury, and the person’s knowledge of the wrongdoing by the manufacturer occur at different points in time, the running of the statute of limitations would begin when the person discovers, or with reasonable diligence should have discovered, the wrongful conduct of the manufacturer.” WILKINSON v. HARRINGTON, 243 A.2d 745 (1968) Martin v. Howard, 784 A.2d 291 (R.I. 2001), Anthony, 490 A.2d at 46.
“[T]o construe the statute narrowly so as to preclude a person from obtaining a remedy simply because the wrong of which he was the victim did not manifest itself for at least two years from the time of the negligent conduct, is clearly inconsistent with the concept of fundamental justice. To require a man to seek a remedy before he knows of his rights, is palpably unjust.” RENAUD v. SIGMA-ALDRICH CORPORATION, Wilkinson, 104 R.I. at 238, 243 A.2d at 753.
“The plaintiff’s cause of action accrued on February 3, 1988, the date she was exposed to acetic acid fumes and was aware that she had been injured as a result. The three-year statute of limitations expired on February 3, 1991. Because the amended complaint was not served upon Fisher until February 1993, the action against Fisher was time barred. The petition for certiorari is granted, and the order denying Fisher’s motion to dismiss is quashed. The papers are remanded to the Superior Court with direction to grant Fisher’s motion to dismiss.” Id.

References: v. 
 v. 
 § 9
 § 2
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 § 9
 v. 
 v. 
 v.