Opinion ID: 2263137
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Judgment Against Brawn, Dutil, Ellis, Fortier, Molnar, Trenholm, and Weir

Text: [¶ 16] As noted above, Brawn I did not expressly affirm the June 21, 2001, summary judgment against Brawn, Dutil, Ellis, Fortier, Molnar, Trenholm, and Weir. They all contend that they have viable Category E claims and that the Superior Court erred in ruling that we affirmed the June 21, 2001, summary judgment, which found against them on all of their claims. [¶ 17] Brawn I affirmed the June 21, 2001, summary judgment when it stated that the seven patients learned of the risks associated with their implants more than three years before they filed their notices of claim, and that the court correctly concluded that their breach of the duty to warn claims were no longer viable. 2003 ME 11, ¶ 29, 819 A.2d at 1027. As we pointed out in the discussion above regarding the Category E claims of Gerard, Shane, Thompson, and York, the duty to warn expires when the patient learns of the defects. Just as the surgeons' duty to warn Gerard, Shane, Thompson, and York expired when they had the implants removed, if not earlier, the same is true for the seven patients. [¶ 18] Dutil had her implants removed in March 1992, but she did not file her notice of claim until July 1995. Ellis had her implants partially removed in 1986, and the remainder removed in 1992, but she did not file her notice of claim until July 1995. Fortier's implants were removed in 1989, and her notice of claim was filed in 1995. Molnar had his implants removed in 1992, but he filed his notice of claim in 1998. Trenholm's implants were removed in 1986, but her notice of claim was filed in 1993. It is readily apparent that more than three years transpired between the removal of the implants and the filing of notices of claim by Dutil, Ellis, Fortier, Molnar, and Trenholm. [¶ 19] The situations of Brawn and Weir are slightly different from the other patients. Brawn's implants were removed on October 2, 1995, and she filed her notice of claim within three years of the removal, on August 20, 1998. However, in her statement of material facts she states that she learned of the potential problems associated with the implants in May 1993. Thus, she waited more than three years after learning of the dangers of the implants before filing notice of her claim. [¶ 20] Weir, unlike all of the other patients involved in this appeal, never had her implants removed, according to the OSA statement of material facts filed in January 2000. She filed her notice of claim on May 3, 1994. The OSA statement of material facts states that Weir received a letter from the FDA in 1989 warning of defects regarding the implants. She did not controvert the statement, and it is deemed admitted. Thus, she waited more than three years after learning of the dangers of the implants before filing her notice of claim. [¶ 21] As we said in Brawn I, the seven patients learned of the risks associated with their implants more than three years before they filed their notices of claim, and their breach of the duty to warn claims were therefore no longer viable. 2003 ME 11, ¶ 29, 819 A.2d at 1027. The Superior Court correctly entered judgment against the seven patients. The entry is: Judgments affirmed.