MOTION OF DEBORAH DESANTO - FOR 60 DAY EXTENSION TO CURE HER EXPLANT AND RUPTURE DEFICIENCIES BASED ON SPECIAL CIRCUMSTANCES

Aug 27, 2026

Upload by Eliana

Motion requests a 60-day extension to cure perceived deficiencies in Deborah DeSanto’s explant and rupture claims in the Eastern District of Michigan, Southern Division. The filing describes her Dow Corning breast implant history, the SF-DCT status notices identifying deficiencies and the six-month cure deadline, and her explanation for late receipt due to an unusually severe Florida hurricane season in 2004. The motion incorporates related motions seeking tolling of cure deadlines and asks the Court to extend the cure period based on special circumstances.

LanguageEnglish

CategoryHealthcare

FormatPDF

Pages26

Reading Time1 h 6 min

AccessFree to download

Motion details

Requested 60-day extension

Claimant background and implant history

Implant timeline and replacements

SF-DCT status and deficiency notifications

Special circumstances supporting tolling

Hurricane season impact on timely receipt

Disaster declarations and supporting exhibits

Filing information

上 E # UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURTEASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGANSOUTHERN DIVISION CASE NO.00-CV-00005-DT(Settlement Facility Matters) IN RE: DOW CORNING CORPORATION, Reorganized Debtor, HON.DENISE PAGE HOOD # MOTION OF DEBORAH DESANTO FOR60 DAY EXTENSION TO CURE HER EXPLANT AND RUPTUREDEFICIENCIES BASED ON SPECIAL CIRCUMSTANCES Comes now,Deborah DeSanto,by and through her undersigned counsel of recordand requests that the Court toll the six month deadline for curing deficiencies in herexplant and rupture claims.In support of her Motion,the claimant submits the following Claimant Deborah DeSanto joins in support and incorporates byreference the Motions filed by Doffermyre Shields CanfieldKnowles &Devine and the Claimants'Advisory Committeeseeking to toll the cure deadlines for deficient claims. 1. In May 1983,Claimant Deborah DeSanto received Dow Corningsilicone gel breast implants in Boca Raton,Florida.The rightimplant was removed and replaced in February 1984 and again inApril 1985 when the right implant ruptured.Both implants wereremoved in Septembcr 1998 and replaced with McGhan salinebreast implants. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. On June 14,2003,the SF-DCT sent a Notice of Status letter statingthat the April 1985 implantation was acceptable proof of DowCorning breast implants and that claimant had submitted "NoProof"for the May 1983 implantation.Mrs.DeSanto submittedadditional documentation and,on September 29,2003,the SF-DCT sent a Notice of Status to claimant that she had acceptableproof of manufacturer for the May 1983 implantation. Mrs.DeSanto has therefore received acceptable proof ofmanufacturer for all of her claimed Dow Corning breast implants. On September 3,2004,the SF-DCT mailed claimant a Notificationof Status letter on her Explant claim and a second Notification ofStatus letter on Mrs.DeSanto's Rupture claim.Both Notificationof Status letters stated that the claims were deficient.The“curedeadline"for both claims was six months from the date of the letteror March 2,2005. Claimant resides in Fort Lauderdale,Florida.The doctor whoperformed the explant surgery is in Delray Beach,Florida.At the time the Notification of Status letters were sent,the state ofFlorida was in the midst of“one of the busiest and mostdestructive”Atlantic hurricane season ever experienced (seeStatement from FEMA website attached as Exhibit 1 hereto).Onetropical storm and four major hurricanes made landfall in the stateof Florida within a six week period from mid-August 2004 to the 8. 9. end of September 2004.Id.As a result,the state of Florida wasdeclared a major disaster area on August 14,2004 because ofHurricanes Bonnie and Charley(see Exhibit 2 attached),onSeptember 4,2004 because of Hurricane Frances (see Exhibit 3attached),on September 16,2004 because of Hurricane Ivan(seeExhibit 4 attached),and on September 26,2004 because ofHurricane Jeanne (see Exhibit 5 attached) As a result of the active hurricane season in 2004,claimant did notreceive the Notification of Status letters in a timely fashion and,when they were received,she was not able to respond to them in atimely fashion to cure the deficiency. Claimant respectfully requests an additional 60 days to cure theperceived deficiencies in her Explant and Rupture claims. Respectfully submitted, Richard DeSantoNl Law Offices of Richard DeSantoSuite 501 2601 East Oakland Park Blvd.Fort Lauderdale,FL 33306 F区下Q,; ЕХНПВТТ 1 Ine z AAnpc i luriGanu uue'nu UI vroLueh e Ne atrWile late intring,thero have now been 12 naned sorma thus far thi seagon.Tnese devastatingl in华eiggecgdookrationo tovorins 13te ane Puerte Biscfor gnerai Inomatlon, n Mitigation Infomatls0 Adritonal Incmatior; Journ nFlorida Puero Rico 1YUHF AJaL X Flonida Georgi Louisinn NtCamlin More Infenatlon Recovwry Information How To Apply EDYAgigbn牌 D推 B eIY Conter Locstion DI²9terAssistancs Fr ntyAsKe:d Oueslion Stpto Tkete

FAQs

What relief does Deborah DeSanto request from the Court?

She requests a 60-day extension to cure perceived deficiencies in her explant and rupture claims.

What deadlines and notices are central to the motion?

The SF-DCT issued status/notification letters stating both claims were deficient, with a six-month cure deadline from the date of the letters (March 2, 2005).

Why does the motion argue the cure period should be extended?

It explains that an extreme 2004 hurricane season in Florida delayed the claimant’s receipt of the notification letters and prevented a timely response to cure the deficiencies.

Aug 27, 2026

Upload by Eliana