Henderson v. Boston Scientific Corporation, No. 3:2020cv00659 - Document 51 (E.D. Va. 2021)
Court Description: OPINION. Signed by District Judge John A. Gibney, Jr on 8/6/2021. (jpow, )
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
Henderson v. Boston Scientific Corporation Doc. 51 Case 3:20-cv-00659-JAG Document 51 Filed 08/06/21 Page 1 of 10 PageID# 4794 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA Richmond Division ELNORA HENDERSON, Plaintiff, Civil Action No. 3:20cv659 V. BOSTON SCIENTIFIC CORPORATION, Defendant. OPINION This matter comes before the Court on a motion for summary judgment filed by the defendant, Boston Scientific Corporation ("Boston Scientific"). (ECF No. 43.) The plaintiff, Elnora Henderson, alleges that she suffered injuries from a transvaginal mesh implant that Boston Scientific designed and manufactured. Henderson brings eight claims against Boston Scientific arising from these injuries. Boston Scientific moves for summary judgment on all of Henderson's claims. For the reasons explained below, the Court will grant Boston Scientific's motion. I. BACKGROUND On December 4, 2008, Henderson underwent vaginal reconstructive surgery to resolve her pelvic organ prolapse. As a part of the repair, the doctor implanted into Henderson a transvaginal mesh. Specifically, the doctor implanted a Pinnacle Pelvic Floor Repair Kit ("Pinnacle mesh"), a prescriptive mesh implant that Boston Scientific designed and manufactured to reinforce a weakened vaginal wall. Henderson claims that she still suffers from complications and pain that she attributes to the Pinnacle mesh. (ECF No. 49, at 3.) Henderson participated in a multidistrict litigation in the Southern District of West Virginia ("MDL"). In re: Boston Scientific Corp., Pelvic Repair System Products Liability Litigation, No. 2:12-md-2326 (S.D.W. Va. filed Aug. 22, 2012). The plaintiffs in the MDL brought nine causes Dockets.Justia.com Case 3:20-cv-00659-JAG Document 51 Filed 08/06/21 Page 2 of 10 PageID# 4795 Case 3:20-cv-00659-JAG Document 51 Filed 08/06/21 Page 3 of 10 PageID# 4796 Case 3:20-cv-00659-JAG Document 51 Filed 08/06/21 Page 4 of 10 PageID# 4797 Case 3:20-cv-00659-JAG Document 51 Filed 08/06/21 Page 5 of 10 PageID# 4798 Case 3:20-cv-00659-JAG Document 51 Filed 08/06/21 Page 6 of 10 PageID# 4799 Case 3:20-cv-00659-JAG Document 51 Filed 08/06/21 Page 7 of 10 PageID# 4800 Case 3:20-cv-00659-JAG Document 51 Filed 08/06/21 Page 8 of 10 PageID# 4801 Case 3:20-cv-00659-JAG Document 51 Filed 08/06/21 Page 9 of 10 PageID# 4802 Case 3:20-cv-00659-JAG Document 51 Filed 08/06/21 Page 10 of 10 PageID# 4803 "calculated to hinder discovery of the cause of action by use of ordinary diligence." Newman v. Walker, 270 Va. 291,296,618 S.E.2d 336,338 (2005). IV. CONCLUSION For the reasons outlined above, the Comt finds that, based on the evidence before this Court,no reasonable jury could find for Henderson on any of her claims. The Court will, therefore, grant Boston Scientific's motion for summary judgment. (ECF No. 43.) Should Henderson wish to appeal this Opinion, she must file a written notice of appeal with the Clerk of Court in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia within thirty (30) days of the date of entry hereof. Failure to file a notice of appeal within that period may result in the loss of the right to appeal. It is so ORDERED. Let the Clerk mail a copy of this Opinion to all counsel of record and the pro se plaintiff. b Date: August 2021 Richmond,VA /s/ John A. Gibney,Jr. United States Dis ยท t J dg 10
]]>
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You
should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google
Privacy Policy and
Terms of Service apply.
