New York Law Review

Giordano v. Market America, Inc., 931 N.E.2d 507 (2010): Latent Injury and Discovery of Cause in Toxic Tort Statute of Limitations

Published by

The New York Law Review

in

Giordano v. Market America, Inc., 931 N.E.2d 507 (2010)

CPLR 214-c(4)’s extended statute of limitations applies to injuries caused by the latent effects of substance exposure, even if the injury manifests within hours, and the cause of the injury is considered ‘discovered’ when the causal relationship is generally accepted in the relevant scientific community.

Summary

Plaintiff suffered strokes allegedly caused by ephedra in a dietary supplement. He sued more than three years after the strokes, relying on CPLR 214-c(4), which extends the statute of limitations when the cause of injury is discovered later. The Second Circuit certified questions to the New York Court of Appeals regarding the interpretation of this statute. The Court of Appeals held that 214-c(4) applies only to injuries caused by latent effects of exposure, even if those effects manifest within hours. The court further clarified that the cause of the injury is ‘discovered’ when the causal relationship is generally accepted within the relevant technical, scientific, or medical community.

Facts

Plaintiff used a dietary supplement containing ephedra for about two years. In March 1999, he suffered a series of strokes. At the time, neither the plaintiff nor his doctors knew that ephedra was the cause. Studies suggested a link between ephedra and stroke as early as 1996, but the link wasn’t established with certainty until later. The plaintiff claimed he became aware of the possible connection in February 2003 after news reports about a baseball player’s death possibly caused by ephedra.

Procedural History

Plaintiff sued the distributor of the product in July 2003 in New York State Supreme Court. The case was removed to federal court and consolidated with other ephedra-related litigation. Defendants moved to dismiss based on the statute of limitations (CPLR 214(5)). The District Court initially granted the motion. The Second Circuit remanded for further consideration. After the District Court ruled again, the Second Circuit certified three questions to the New York Court of Appeals.

Issue(s)

1. Whether the provisions of N.Y. C.R.L.R. § 214-c(4) providing for an extension of the statute of limitations in certain circumstances limited to actions for injuries caused by the latent effects of exposure to a substance?

2. Whether an injury that occurs within 24 to 48 hours of exposure to a substance can be considered ‘latent’ for these purposes?

3. What standards should be applied to determine whether a genuine issue of material fact exists for resolution by a trier of fact as to whether ‘technical, scientific or medical knowledge and information sufficient to ascertain the cause of [the plaintiff’s] injury’ was ‘discovered, identified or determined’ for N.Y. C.E.L.R. § 214-c(4) purposes?

Holding

1. Yes, because CPLR 214-c(4) incorporates the latency requirement from subdivisions (2) and (3) and because the legislative history shows the statute was intended to address injuries with delayed discovery.

2. Yes, because even a brief period of latency can hinder the determination of an injury’s cause, which is the problem that CPLR 214-c(4) addresses.

3. The standard is whether the causal relationship between the substance and the injury is generally accepted in the relevant technical, scientific, or medical community.

Court’s Reasoning

The court found that CPLR 214-c(4) explicitly references and incorporates the requirements of subdivisions (2) and (3), which include the

More ARTICLES