FiberCel Litigation

• Court: Superior Court of Delaware
• Decided: February 28, 2024
• Docket: N23C-06-001 FIB N21C-07-004 FIB N23C-06-193 FIB
• Status: Published

Opinion

IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE

IN RE: FIBERCELL LITIGATION ) MASTER DOCKET ) C.A. No. N23C-06-001 CFIB _______________________________________________________________

LINDA L. SHIELDS, ) Plaintiff, ) v. ) ) AZIYO BIOLOGICS, INC., ) MEDTRONIC SOFAMOR DANEK ) C.A. No. N21C-07-004 FIB USA, INC., SPINALCRAFT ) TECHNOLOGIES, LLC, DCI ) JURY TRIAL DEMANDED DONOR SERVICES, INC., and ) NEW MEXICO DONOR ) SERVICES, ) Defendant. )

________________________________________________________________

LINDA L. SHIELDS, ) Plaintiff, ) v. ) C.A. No. N23C-06-193 FIB ) KENNETH LINGENGELTER, D.O., ) and FIRST STATE ) JURY TRIAL DEMANDED ORTHOPAEDICS, P.A., a ) Delaware Corporation, ) Defendants. )

Date Submitted: December 13, 2023 Date Decided: February 28, 2024

On Plaintiff’s Motion for Consolidation – GRANTED 1. Civil Action No. N21C-07-004 FIB is a negligence and breach of warranty

action, among other allegations, concerning the implantation of a medical device

that was contaminated with Tuberculosis. Plaintiff Linda Shields is one of

multiple plaintiffs in a larger litigation that has been consolidated into one global

case: C.A. No. N23C-06-001 FIB (“Fiber Cell Litigation”).

2. Civil Action No. N23C-06-193 FIB is a medical negligence action against

the doctor and facility who performed the procedure in which the contaminated

device was implanted in Plaintiff.

3. Pending before the Court is Plaintiff’s motion to consolidate these two

actions pursuant to Superior Court Civil Rule 42(a). Plaintiff, in essence, argues

that because the underlying facts stem from the same set of facts, judicial economy

would best be served by consolidation.

4. The medical negligence Defendants in C.A. No. N23C-06-193 FIB oppose

this consolidation, and argue in essence, that 1) the legal issues presented by each

unique defendant is different; 2) there is prejudice in that the defendants in the

Fiber Cell Litigation have already engaged in multiple scheduling conferences with

the Court, and if consolidated, they would be subjected to deadlines already set.

5. While the Court understands the arguments presented by counsel for the

Medical Negligence defendants, trial for that matter is not scheduled until January,

2025. The Court will handle these unique cases that will accommodate any compressed discovery or motion practice to ensure that no parties suffer any

prejudice as a result of consolidation. This is because the Court does find that

judicial economy is best served by a consolidation of these cases. The potential

legal defenses by all defendants can be presented after one basic presentation of the

similar underlying facts of all cases are presented to a single jury.

WHEREFORE, for the reasons stated above, the Plaintiff’s motion for

consolidation is GRANTED.

IT IS SO ORDERED, this 28th day of February, 2024.

_____________________ Danielle J. Brennan, Judge

CC: All parties via File&Serve