Panacryl Endosurgical Sutures Defective, But Clock Ran Out for Plaintiff

October 19, 2010, 3:30PM. By Gordon Gibb

Trenton, NJIn spite of the fact that a woman's infection following a cesarean section was believed to have been caused by Panacryl endosurgical sutures, two courts ruled for summary judgment in favor of defendant Johnson & Johnson Health Care Systems Inc. (J&J) and Ethicon Inc. because the plaintiff waited too long to launch her legal challenge against the allegedly faulty product.

The New Jersey Superior Court, Appellate Division, this past spring upheld an earlier court ruling that applicable statute of limitations barred the products liability action by plaintiff Misti Blessing.

Health Law Week of April 2, 2010 refers to the Blessing case. It was reported that on August 10, 2001 the plaintiff underwent a cesarean section for which Panacryl sutures were used to close the wound. All appeared well for six months. Then, on February 10th of the following year, the plaintiff noted blood oozing from the incision, which had since opened.

Consulting her doctor the same day that she noted the bleeding, Blessing was told, "the sutures caused an infection, and that the infection worked from the inside out and it bubbled out and it opened up my incision," she said.

Four weeks later, on March 15, 2002, Blessing underwent scar revision surgery, which included the removal of the allegedly problematic sutures.

Blessing subsequently brought a products liability action against J&J and Ethicon, alleging the sutures that caused her abdominal infection were defective. However, the plaintiff didn't launch her action until May 31, 2007—long after the normal two-year statute of limitations had run its course. Noting the delay in bringing the action, the trial court granted the defendant's motion for summary judgment.

The plaintiff appealed the ruling, arguing that that the trial court failed to apply the discovery rule which holds that a cause of action does not accrue until the injured party discovers, or by an exercise of reasonable diligence and intelligence should have discovered a basis for an actionable claim.

The appellate court affirmed the trial court's original ruling given evidence that the plaintiff was aware that her injury was caused by Panacryl sutures, which failed to perform as expected. "A reasonable person of ordinary diligence would be in possession of enough information to realize that the injuries may have been due to the fault of another," said the court. The fact that Blessing, with this knowledge in hand, failed to launch her claim within two years, was her own responsibility.

Be that as it may, the fact remains that Panacryl sutures were described as having caused a potentially serious infection that resulted in a second surgery.