United States District Court, W.D. Louisiana, Shreveport Division
L. HORNSBY MAG. JUDGE.
A. DOUGHTY UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE.
a products liability action brought by Plaintiff Shawanna
Shepard (“Shepard”) against Defendants Johnson
& Johnson and Ethicon, Inc. (“Ethicon”).
Pending before the Court is Ethicon's Motion for Summary
Judgment [Doc. No. 45]. Shepard did not oppose the motion.
following reasons, the Motion is GRANTED, and Shepard's
claims are DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE.
FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY
December 9, 2015, Shepard underwent surgery by Dr. Kathryn
Richardson to repair an umbilical hernia. During surgery,
Ethicon's PROCEED® Ventral Patch (“PVP”)
was implanted. Shepard contends that each of the Defendants
is a “manufacturer” of PVP within the meaning of
the Louisiana Products Liability Act (“LPLA”),
La. Rev. Stat.' 9:2800.51, et seq.
Richardson was aware that there is a chance of recurrence of
the hernia, but testified that there is a lesser chance using
mesh rather than performing a primary repair. [Doc. No. 45-3,
Exh. A, Deposition of Dr. Kathryn Richardson, p. 30]. Shepard
was advised by Dr. Richardson and also on the consent form
that recurrence was a risk of hernia repair. Id. at
pp. 34-35, 40, 79.
surgery and at the post-operative visits, Dr. Richardson did
not find any infection at the site of the PVP, nor did she
find any indications of erosion or extrusion of the PVP.
Id. at p. 61.
suffering pain, in October 2016, Shepard sought medical
treatment and was referred to the surgical clinic. [Doc. No.
25-4]. She had a CT scan [Doc. Nos. 25-5 & 25-6] and was
then referred to Dr. Forrest Dean Griffen. A second hernia
repair was performed under Dr. Griffen's supervision as
attending physician. [Doc. No. 25-9]. Dr. Griffen testified
that the hernia recurrence “could have occurred whether
mesh [PVP] was used or not, ” and he could not
“say for sure” what caused the recurrence. [Doc.
No. 45-4, Exh. B, Deposition of Dr. Forrest Dean Griffen, p.
December 11, 2017, Shepard filed suit against Ethicon in this
case has proceeded in the ensuing two years.
the applicable scheduling order, Shepard had until September
9, 2019, to identify her experts to Defendants and until
September 13, 2019, to provide Defendants with her expert
reports. She sought and obtained an extension of these
deadlines to September 23 and 27, 2019, respectively [Doc.
did not produce reports from any expert by the deadline of
September 27, 2019.
October 3, 2019, Ethicon filed the instant Motion for Summary
Judgment [Doc. No. 45]. Under the Court's Notice of
Motion Setting [Doc. No. 46], Shepard's opposition ...