The AI workspace for legal professionals
- Legal research with access to more than 1 million sources
- Document automation
- Matter management
- Hosted in the EU and Switzerland
Try it free for 14 days (10 questions/day during trial)
The AI workspace for legal professionals
Try it free for 14 days (10 questions/day during trial)
19-1079•In re: SMITH & NEPHEW BIRMINGHAM HIP RESURFACING (BHR) HIP IMPLANT PRODUCTS… v. Smith & Nephew, Inc.
19-1079Court of Appeals for the Fourth CircuitOct 22, 2019
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 19-1079
In re: SMITH & NEPHEW BIRMINGHAM HIP RESURFACING (BHR) HIP
IMPLANT PRODUCTS LIABILITY LITIGATION
------------------------------
KIMBERLEE AITCHESON; DOUGLAS AITCHESON,
Plaintiffs - Appellants,
v.
SMITH & NEPHEW, INC.,
Defendant - Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore.
Catherine C. Blake, District Judge. (1:17-md-02775-CCB; 1:18-cv-00252-CCB)
Submitted: September 12, 2019 Decided: October 22, 2019
Before DIAZ and FLOYD, Circuit Judges, and TRAXLER, Senior Circuit Judge.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Brian A. Goldstein, CELLINO & BARNES, PC, Buffalo, New York, for Appellants. Terri
S. Reiskin, DYKEMA GOSSETT PLLC, Washington, D.C.; Kim E. Moore, David
O’Quinn, IRWIN FRITCHIE URQUHART & MOORE, New Orleans, Louisiana; Paul J.
Zidlicky, Jennifer J. Clark, Milton P. Wilkins, Washington, D.C., Sara J. Gourley, Daniel
-- 1 of 3 --
2
A. Spira, SIDLEY AUSTIN LLP, Chicago, Illinois, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
-- 2 of 3 --
3
PER CURIAM:
KimberLee and Douglas Aitcheson appeal the district court’s order granting Smith
& Nephew, Inc.’s (S&N) motion to dismiss their products liability claims against S&N.
We have reviewed the record and discern no error in the district court’s determination that
the Aitchsons’ claims against S&N are untimely and not subject to equitable tolling.
Accordingly, for the reasons stated by the district court, we affirm the district court’s orders
disposing of the Aitchesons’ claims. See Aitcheson v. Smith & Nephew, Inc., Nos. 1:17-
cv-02775-CCB; 1:18-cv-00252-CCB (D. Md. filed Nov. 19, 2018 & entered Nov. 20,
2018; Dec. 19, 2018). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal
contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would
not aid the decisional process.
AFFIRMED
-- 3 of 3 --
Connect Omnilex to search the legal corpus from your AI assistant.