A Mississippi couple has filed the most recent morcellation cancer lawsuit in Pennsylvania state court, alleging the use of a power morcellator resulted in the spread of malignant cancer.

Plaintiffs Marlene and Joel W. allege that Marlene was harmed in 2011 when doctors used a PKS PlasmaSORD Bipolar Morcellator during her uterine fibroid surgery. Marlene and Joel’s power morcellator lawsuit alleges that use of the PlasmaSORD during that surgery resulted in the spread of malignant cancer cells elsewhere in her body.

They are suing Gyrus Acmi Inc., Olympus Corporation Inc., and their related companies. Gyrus and Olympic manufacture the PlasmaSORD power morcellator.

According to legal filings, Marlene and Joel presumed that any relevant information connecting power morcellators with the spreading of unknown cancer cells would have been included in the product information that defendants provided to Marlene’s surgeon.

Marlene and Joel say that if they had been made fully aware of the risk that power morcellation could cause the upstaging and spreading of previously unknown cancer cells, they would not have consented to the surgery.

Power Morcellator Studies

The power morcellator lawsuit also alleges that the defendants knew or should have known that power morcellation can lead to the upstaging of previously undetected cancer.

They cite literature from as early as 1991, including a patent for a surgical tissue bag that notes morcellation of large tissue masses can create a danger that malignant or otherwise pathogenic tissue might spread. Such inadvertent spreading of dangerous tissue significantly increased patient morbidity, the patent said.

The plaintiffs cite other scientific studies published from 1997 through 2011 that repeatedly describe the problem of cancer upstaging associated with power morcellation. Other studies cited in the morcellator lawsuit concluded that pre-surgical testing can’t always detect malignant cancer in abdominal tissue.

One study also noted that to compound the problem, tissue removed by morcellation tends to be in such poor condition that it can confound any effort to screen for cancer after surgery, giving cancer a chance to spread and progress undetected.

Based on the availability of these studies, Marlene and Joel say the defendants were on notice about the problem and should have properly warned patients and physicians about it.

This morcellation cancer lawsuit is raising claims based on theories of failure to warn, design defect, negligence, fraud, suppression of vital safety information, and breach of warranty. Joel, Marlene’s husband, is bringing his own claim for loss of consortium, a type of claim that the spouse of a harmed person can bring based on the harm’s effect on their marital relationship.

In addition to their request for compensatory damages, the plaintiffs seek an award of punitive damages based on the defendant’s actions that were allegedly “reckless and without regard for the public’s safety and welfare.” They also seek reimbursement of attorneys’ fees and the costs of their litigation.

This morcellation cancer lawsuit is the third such claim filed in Pennsylvania state court since May 2015. The claim is currently pending in the Court of Common Pleas for Philadelphia County under case ID no. 150900680. Marlene and Joel are represented by attorneys from Williams Kherkher Hart Boundas, LLP.