Grady v. A.H. Robins Co.
United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
839 F.2d 198 (1988)
- Written by Philip Glass, JD
Facts
On August 21, 1985, Rebecca Grady (plaintiff) went to the hospital in response to a sudden health emergency. It was discovered that a Dalkon Shield, an intrauterine contraceptive device, inserted years earlier was the cause of Grady’s pain, and the Dalkon Shield was removed surgically on August 28, 1985. Consequently, Grady filed a tort action against A. H. Robins Co. (Robins) (defendant), the manufacturer of the Dalkon Shield, on October 15, 1985. Besides the original insertion of the Dalkon Shield, these events all occurred after Robins filed a Chapter 11 petition. On November 14, 1985, Grady experienced further complications from the Dalkon Shield, necessitating a hysterectomy as treatment for a pelvic-inflammatory-disease diagnosis. After filing her tort action, Grady filed a motion in bankruptcy court, arguing that the automatic-stay provision of 11 U.S.C. § 362(a)(1) did not apply to her cause of action. The district court ruled that Grady’s claim dated back not to the original discovery of the health complications but to the act that allegedly caused her health problems, namely the insertion of the Dalkon Shield several years earlier. Thus, the district court determined that Grady’s claim was subject to the automatic-stay provision, and Grady appealed.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Widener, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 832,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,500 briefs, keyed to 994 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.