The U.S. Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation is scheduled to hear oral arguments to determine if consolidating similar power morcellator lawsuits is appropriate.

Attorneys for both sides will present oral arguments on Oct. , at the Daniel Patrick Moynihan U. S. Courthouse in New York City.

The power morcellator lawsuits claim that women developed an aggressive form of uterine cancer after undergoing hysterectomy or myomectomy procedures in which a power morcellator was used.

Power morcellators are medical devices commonly used for laparscopic surgeries. They enable surgeons to accurately make a small, precise incision, leading to a less invasive surgery and a shorter recovery time. The devices have rotating blades that essentially shred uterine fibroids, which the surgeon then suctions out through a tube.

While popular among patients and the medical community for a time, not all patients have had a good experience with the devices.

A large number of women are suing the power morcellator manufacturers, alleging that the products caused devastating side effects, and some hospitals have stopped using the devices for hysterectomies and myomectomies following numerous injury reports and scientific studies indicating that these devices may be unsafe.

The risk comes from undetected uterine sarcoma, a particularly aggressive form of cancer. At this time, there is no way to pre-diagnose uterine sarcoma before using a power morcellator in surgery.

The blades of the device rupture the sarcoma and cause the cells to rapidly spread throughout the abdominal cavity, and women are often diagnosed soon after surgery.

Scientists estimate that about one out of every 350 women undergoing power morcellator surgeries suffer from undiagnosed uterine sarcoma.

By the time the cancer is diagnosed, the condition is already typically at a latent stage, with few treatment options and short survival expectancy.

Despite the severity of these risks, a number of manufacturers have decided against including this complication on the products’ warning labels.

Overview of Power Morcellator Allegations

The device’s link with uterine sarcoma and the manufacturer’s reluctance to provide adequate warning labels have spurred numerous patients to take legal action against the power morcellator manufacturers, leading to the upcoming decision whether to consolidate power morcellator lawsuits into a multidistrict litigation.

In June 2015, a group of plaintiffs filed a motion to centralize all power morcellator lawsuits under one judge in the federal court system, giving the suits multidistrict litigation (MDL) status.

There are currently at least 21 lawsuits filed in 16 different district courts in the United States, with each raising similar product liability allegations.

The plaintiffs state that there a number of benefits to consolidating the lawsuits, including conserving litigation resources and streamlining the litigation process.

Furthermore, consolidating these suits under one judge will help avoid duplicate discovery and conflicting rulings from different judges.

Many of the power morcellator manufacturers are opposed to the consolidation. Johnson & Johnson’s Ethicon subsidiary, which sold a large majority of the power morcellators, stated that there are too few lawsuits to justify MDL status. Johnson & Johnson also urged the panel to reject the possibility of establishing separate MDLs for different manufacturers.