In May 2007, Rowena Crowe visited her gynecologist, Dr. Robert Brown, and complained of urinary incontinence and pelvic pressure. Dr. Brown recommended surgical implantation of two pelvic mesh devices—a transvaginal tape obturator, or “TVT-O,” and a Prolift pelvic floor repair system—to treat stress urinary incontinence and pelvic organ prolapse. In July 2007, Dr. Angela McCool performed the surgery to implant the pelvic mesh devices manufactured by Ethicon.
By 2010, Mrs. Crowe began experiencing “[h]orrific pelvic pain, pain during sexual intercourse, infections, back and leg pain[,] and urinary retention.” Between 2010 and 2014, Mrs. Crowe visited gynecologists, orthopedic surgeons, physical therapists, and a neurologist to relieve her symptoms. On July 28, 2010, she met with Dr. McCool and reported feeling pelvic pain and “like she [was] having to ‘hold’ her organs in.”
On August 5, 2010, Dr. Brown recorded that Mrs. Crowe reported feeling “pain in the left groin that started a few months ago” and that she “[w]as concerned that the pain was related to anterior prolift/tvto done 7/2007.”
On August 20, 2015, the Crowes filed suit in the District of New Jersey, and the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation later transferred the action to the Southern District of West Virginia for pretrial proceedings. After the action was remanded to the District of New Jersey, Johnson & Johnson successfully moved to transfer the action, see 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a), to the Southern District of Alabama, where the Crowes resided. Johnson & Johnson moved for summary judgment and argued that the Crowes’ complaint was untimely under Alabama’s two-year statute of limitations for personal-injury claims, ALA. CODE §§ 6-2-30(a), -38(l).
The Crowes contended that, although both states’ laws provided a two-year statute of limitations, only New Jersey recognizes a “discovery rule” under which the limitations period does not begin to run until the injured party discovers, or should have discovered by exercising reasonable diligence, that she might have a basis for a claim for relief. They argued that their claims were timely under this discovery rule because they did not suspect that the pelvic mesh devices could be causing the injuries until Mrs. Crowe met with Dr. Galloway in April 2015.
The district court granted summary judgment in favor of Johnson & Johnson. It determined that no true conflict existed under the New Jersey choice-of-law rules because the Crowes’ claims were untimely under both the New Jersey discovery rule and the Alabama manifest-injury rule. Applying the New Jersey discovery rule, it determined that Mrs. Crowe, by an exercise of reasonable diligence and intelligence, should have discovered that she might have a basis for a claim no later than 2012, when she had the mesh surgically released. And, applying the Alabama manifest-injury rule, it ruled that her claims accrued in 2010 when she reported her injuries to Dr. Brown. The Crowes appealed.
The United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit stated in its May 1, 2025 Opinion: “The evidence, viewed in the light most favorable to the Crowes, fails to create a genuine dispute of material fact about whether they first discovered a possible connection between Mrs. Crowe’s injuries and the mesh devices by August 20, 2013—two
years before they filed their lawsuit. Contemporaneous medical records make clear that Mrs. Crowe began connecting the dots between her pain and the mesh devices long before she met with Dr. Galloway. The records state that on August 5, 2010, she told Dr. Brown that she was experiencing pelvic pain and he noted that the “left side mesh [was] tighter than [the] right side.” The records state that on January 12, 2011, she told Dr. McCool that she was “worried that something [was] wrong with her sling.” The records state that on May 24, 2012, she asked Dr. Brown, “Does the mesh have anything to do with [the] pain and what if you release it?” And the records state that despite Dr. Brown’s uncertainty about the source of her pain and his warning that releasing the mesh could cause additional pain, Mrs. Crowe still allowed him to release the mesh during a surgery on October 8, 2012, because she subjectively believed that her pain might be causally linked to the mesh devices.”
The federal appellate court held: “In the light of the medical records stating that Mrs. Crowe repeatedly inquired whether the mesh was causing her injuries and insisted on having the mesh removed despite her doctor’s uncertainty, the Crowes discovered or should have discovered “facts suggesting the possibility of wrongdoing” by October 2012. Savage, 633 A.2d at 518. And, because no actual conflict exists between the outcomes of applying either the Alabama or New Jersey rules, we need not resolve the parties’ dispute about whether McCarrell applies retroactively.”
Source Crowe v. Johnson & Johnson, No. 23-11128.
If you or a family member were implanted with pelvic mesh or other surgical mesh and suffered 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.
