Motion to Consolidate Injury Cases Caused by Hair Implantation

In Bender v. Underwood (93 AD2d 747,461 NYS2d 301 [1st Dept 1983], a motion to consolidate six personal injury actions arising out of a certain hair implantation process was denied. The court actually found that there were common 'questions of law and fact but denied consolidation because: "Individual issues predominate, concerning particular circumstances applicable to each plaintiff so as to preclude the direction of a joint trial . . . . Each treatment was separate and distinct, involving different plaintiffs, each with individual medical histories . . . . Under the circumstances of this case, the resulting and cumulative prejudice to [the defendants] by permitting the jury, in one trial, to determine the multiple claims of malpractice at issue here, far outweighs the benefit derived from the conduct of a joint trial. In addition, . . . of further relevance on the issue is the possibility of confusion for the jury" (at 748; see also Glussi v. Fortune Brands, Inc., 276 AD2d 586, 714 NYS2d 516 [2d Dept 2000], lv denied 96 NY2d 730, 745 N.E.2d 1018, 722 NYS2d 796 [2001]).