Kranz v Astora Women's Health LLC

[2022] QSC 203 · Freeburn J

In plain language

Belinda Kranz had a pelvic mesh device surgically implanted in 2016 and removed in 2018. She was originally part of a Federal Court class action against the United States manufacturer Astora Women's Health over the mesh, but after learning she would receive very little from a proposed settlement she opted out to pursue her own claim. Her personal injury claim faced several obstacles: she had not completed the pre-court steps required by Queensland law, her limitation period was about to expire, the company was overseas and hard to serve, and Astora had entered bankruptcy in the United States. Kranz asked the court for urgent permission to start her claim despite not finishing the pre-court steps. The company did not appear at the hearing, though it had received notice. The court allowed the hearing to go ahead without the company present and granted permission for Kranz to start her claim, which would then be immediately paused. This decision did not resolve her injury claim, it only kept the door open for it.

Incident & injury

Personal injuries arising from the surgical implantation of an allegedly faulty pelvic mesh device (inserted 31 March 2016, removed 17 December 2018)

Body regions
Abdomen / pelvis, Pelvic
Diagnoses
Pelvic mesh device complications
Incident date
31 March 2016
Location
Queensland

Quick facts

Date of judgment
23 September 2022
Proceeding
Interlocutory
Plaintiff outcome
Successful
Plaintiff age at injury
Not stated
Occupation
Not stated

Outcome

The court granted the plaintiff leave under s 43 of the Personal Injuries Proceedings Act 2002 (Qld) to start a proceeding for personal injury damages despite non-compliance with PIPA pre-court procedures, being satisfied there was an urgent need given the imminent expiry of an extended limitation period. Any proceeding so commenced would be immediately stayed by operation of s 43(3). Costs were reserved.

Defendant

1 Astora Women's Health LLC

Product manufacturer/successor (pelvic mesh)

Judgment against this defendant
$0

Key issues

📑 Cite this case (AGLC4)

Kranz v Astora Women's Health LLC [2022] QSC 203

When typing in a Word document, italicise the case name. The copy button copies plain text suitable for any editor.

← Back to the case archive