Products liability – Limitations – Heart valve

Listen to this article

Where a complaint was filed in 2023 alleging that a faulty medical device was responsible for a patient’s untimely death, the complaint must be dismissed under the Massachusetts three-year statue of limitations, as the plaintiff was aware of the alleged injury in 2015.

“Plaintiff Stacey Stewart-Mackey (‘Plaintiff’) brings this personal injury case on behalf of herself and as administrator of the estate of Rachel Sweet (‘Rachel’) pursuant to Mass. Gen. Laws Ch. 229, §2 et seq. Plaintiff generally alleges that Defendant Corcym, Inc.’s (‘Defendant’ or ‘Corcym’) faulty medical device was responsible for Rachel’s untimely death. …

“Defendant owns the company that made the Sorin Mitroflow Aortic Health Valve (the ‘Valve’). …

“In 2015, Rachel began experiencing complications with the Valve, and it was determined that it needed to be replaced with a larger valve. …

“Plaintiff filed the Complaint on January 24, 2023, asserting claims for negligence, design defect, failure to warn, breach of warranty, gross negligence/wrongful death, and violation of Mass. Gen. Laws Ch. 93A. …

“Here, Plaintiff does not dispute that if the injury was discovered or reasonably should have been discovered in 2015 at the time of Rachel’s initial valve replacement, the statute of limitations would have run before the Complaint at issue here was filed in January 2023. …

“… The fact that the limited treatment options caused by the Valve did not result in her death until 2020 does not toll or change the statute of limitations. … Accordingly, Plaintiff was aware of the alleged injury in 2015, and the statute of limitations had run by the time she brought suit in 2023. …”

Stewart-Mackey v. Corcym, Inc. (Lawyers Weekly No. 02-484-23) (9 pages) (Burroughs, J.) (Civil Action No. 23-cv-10155-ADB) (Oct. 26, 2023).

Click here to read the full text of the opinion.