Under Florida’s statute of limitations, a plaintiff has four years to initiate a products liability suit. Fla. Stat. §§ 95.11(3)(e), 95.031(2)(b) (2014). The four-year period begins to run from the date that the facts giving rise to the cause of action were discovered, or should have been discovered with the exercise of due diligence. The Supreme Court of Florida has
explained that the knowledge required to commence the limitation period, however, does not rise to that of legal certainty. Instead, plaintiffs need only have notice, through the exercise of reasonable diligence, of the possible invasion of their legal rights. This knowledge has two essential ingredients: an injury distinct in some way from conditions naturally to be expected from the plaintiff’s condition, and exposure to the product in question.
In a federal case alleging that the vaginal mesh devices inserted inside the palintiff’s body on December 15, 2009 were defectively designed, the jury found that the plaintiff, Redding’s, claim had not accrued on or before September 18, 2010, and awarded her $2.5 million in damages. The federal district court denied the defendant’s motion for judgment as a matter of law, and the defendant appealed.
The United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit stated in its June 20, 2024 published Opinion “Coloplast argues that Redding knew or should have known “with the exercise of due diligence” about her cause of action before September 18, 2010, because she experienced the same kind of pain in 2009/2010 as she experienced in 2014 and knew she had a mesh erosion. See Fla. Stat. § 95.031(2)(b) (2014). But the evidence, viewed in the light most favorable to Redding, was not “so overwhelmingly in favor of [Coloplast] that a reasonable jury could not arrive at a contrary verdict.””
“A host of evidence suggests that, in the months following her initial surgery on December 15, 2009, Redding thought that she was experiencing normal, post-surgical complications. Like Eghnayem—and unlike the child in Bogorff—Redding’s symptoms during her five follow-up appointments between December 28, 2009, and May 10, 2010, did not signal a “dramatic change” in her condition from what would be expected post-implantation surgery. For example, although Redding had an infection, Dr. Weaver explained that infection could result from any surgery. And the tiny, post-surgery erosion was not a sufficiently dramatic change in her recovery condition to cause concern.”
“Further, the evidence does not suggest that Redding had reason to suspect a causal connection between the Coloplast mesh devices and her symptoms between the initial surgery on December 15, 2009, and the statute of limitations cut-off date on September 18, 2010 … Dr. Weaver never told her that the mesh devices caused her symptoms or were in any way defective, and the record does not show that Dr. Weaver told Redding that the products were causing her harm … Contrary to Coloplast’s assertions, Dr. Weaver never diagnosed Redding’s “tiny erosion” or the mesh products as the cause of any problems during any of his five appointments with Redding between December 28, 2009, and May 10, 2010. Rather, as we have already explained, Dr. Weaver labeled the tiny erosion as “asymptomatic” multiple times during his testimony and said it was “tiny,” about “a millimeter wide.” Further, Dr. Weaver expected this small erosion to heal on its own, and it was exactly the type of minor issue expected following a vaginal mesh implant surgery.”
The federal appellate court stated: “In 2014, new symptoms triggered the statute of limitations. When Redding saw Dr. McCarus, she complained for the first time about vaginal bleeding (including postmenopausal bleeding) and pelvic pain. Dr. McCarus diagnosed Redding’s pelvic pain as relating to a larger mesh erosion, “approximately a centimeter” in size … He testified that erosions may show up years after mesh is implanted—which, in his opinion, occurred here. Accordingly, from Redding’s own testimony and the medical testimony of Dr. Weaver, Dr. McCarus, and Dr. Hoyte, the jury’s conclusion—that Redding did not know or should not have known about her cause of action before September 18, 2010—was reasonable.”
“In sum, we conclude that the evidence, viewed in the light most favorable to Redding, did not overwhelmingly establish that she knew or should have known about a compensable injury arising out of Coloplast’s mesh before September 18, 2010, such that a reasonable jury could not conclude otherwise.”
Source Redding v. Coloplast Corporation, No. 22-13218.
If you or a family member were implanted with vaginal mesh or other surgical mesh and suffered mesh erosion, complications, injuries, or chronic pain afterwards, you should find a mesh claim lawyer in your U.S. state who may investigate your mesh claim for you and represent you or your family member in a claim against the manufacturer, distributor, and/or supplier of the mesh, if appropriate.
Visit our website or call us toll-free in the United States at 800-295-3959 to find mesh claim attorneys who may assist you.
Turn to us when you don’t know where to turn.
