The 4th Circuit Court of Appeals held that the consolidation of four (4) independent causes of action did not deprive the Defendant of a fair trial. In Campbell v. Boston Scientific Corp., ____ F. 3d ____ (4th Cir. 2018), 2018 WL 732371, four (4) Plaintiffs alleged that they experienced severe complications from a mesh medical device manufactured by the Defendant. Their actions were consolidated in a MDL. At the close of discovery Defendant moved to conduct separate trials for the four (4) cases remaining in the MDL. It argued that the similarities were not predominant but it?s motion was denied. The jury returned separate verdicts in favor of the Plaintiffs and Defendant appealed. One of the grounds was the consolidation for trial.
Defendant contended that, despite numerous protections by the trial court, it was prejudiced by the admission of evidence which was admissible as to only some but not all of the Defendants. The reviewing court said:
?Indeed, BSC’s objections go more to the weight of the evidence than to its admissibility. We certainly cannot say that allowing this evidence in the consolidated trial prejudiced BSC to the extent that consolidation itself was an abuse of discretion.?
In addition, the Court pointed out that Defendant asked it to infer jury confusion based on the similarities of the damages awarded to the Plaintiffs. The Court rejected this saying:
?Here, there is little reason to be suspicious of the verdicts given that BSC had a chance to fully develop its defenses and that the judge properly instructed the jury throughout the trial to keep the cases separate. What is more, the four plaintiffs did not receive identical damages awards, but instead received damages that varied by $1 million across plaintiffs. That the total damages awards were of the same order of magnitude appears to reflect the very similarities between the cases that justified consolidation in the first place.?