Shiley Gains Protection From Suits Out of State : Ruling: State Supreme Court lets stand a decision that could prevent certain litigation against the Irvine heart valve manufacturer in California if the plaintiff lives elsewhere.
In a small victory for heart valve manufacturer Shiley Inc., the California Supreme Court has let stand a lower court decision that could prevent out-of-state residents from pursuing emotional-distress litigation against the Irvine company in California courts.
Three months ago, the 4th District Court of Appeal in Santa Ana rejected Orange County Superior Court Judge William F. Rylaarsdam’s 1991 ruling that cleared the way for out-of-state plaintiffs’ cases to be heard here.
Shiley’s convexo-concave heart valves, implanted in nearly 55,000 patients worldwide, have fractured in more than 350 recipients--causing about 250 deaths. Hundreds of patients with working heart valves have sued Shiley and its parent company, New York-based Pfizer Inc., alleging anxiety or emotional distress about the safety of the device.
Of the 459 emotional-distress cases pending against Shiley in California, just 44 are known to have been filed by California residents.
Shiley spokesman Robert Fauteaux said the latest court ruling “suggests the wisdom of plaintiffs opting into the recent settlement decision.”
In January, Shiley and Pfizer initiated a proposal to pay $75 million for research and valve replacement surgery, plus an additional $80 million to $130 million for physician consultations and anxiety-related medical expenses.
The companies would also create an independent panel to devise guidelines under which a recipient could be compensated by Shiley for having the valve replaced. Last week, the companies also agreed to set up an appeal system through which recipients who want to have their valves replaced--yet fail to meet the panel’s guidelines--could have their cases heard.
The state Supreme Court decision does not automatically block all out-of-state plaintiffs from having their cases heard in California, said Vance Simonds, a lawyer with the Irvine firm of Capretz & Kasdan, which represents 305 of the Shiley heart valve patients.
“The courts are still required to examine the primary factors (before rejecting an out-of-state plaintiff’s case), such as the location of witnesses and evidence,” Simonds said. “I have little doubt that these people will successfully pursue their cases, whether in California or in their home states.”
