Opinion
C.A. N23C-06-001 CFIB N21C-07-004 FIB N23C-06-193 FIB
02-28-2024
IN RE: FIBERCELL LITIGATION v. AZIYO BIOLOGICS, INC., MEDTRONIC SOFAMOR DANEK USA, INC., SPINALCRAFT TECHNOLOGIES, LLC, DCI DONOR SERVICES, INC., and NEW MEXICO DONOR SERVICES, Defendant. LINDA L. SHIELDS, Plaintiff, LINDA L. SHIELDS, Plaintiff, v. KENNETH LINGENGELTER, D.O., and FIRST STATE ORTHOPAEDICS, P.A., a Delaware Corporation, Defendants.
Submitted: December 13, 2023
On Plaintiffs Motion for Consolidation - GRANTED
JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
Danielle J. Brennan, Judge
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 Plaintiffs 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 Plaintiffs motion for consolidation is GRANTED.
IT IS SO ORDERED.