Archive for category Transvaginal Mesh

Endo Health Solutions Saving $520 Million to Fund Transvaginal Mesh Lawsuits While Settling Off Label Marketing Claims for Lidoderm

AMSIn 2011, Endo Health Solutions bought American Medical Systems, one of the manufacturers who is currently embroiled in the transvaginal mesh litigation, with over 5,000 pending lawsuits before Judge Joseph Goodwin.  In 2008, women who used these devices began filing suits against American Medical Systems.  In 2013, Endo agreed to pay some $54.5 million toward settling some of the pending suits.

According to regulatory filings, Endo Health Solutions is building a stockpile of cash in the amount of $520 million increasing reserves to cover expected fallout from the pelvic mesh litigation.  Endo disclosed in a regulatory filing that the amount of money could increase due to the growing lawsuits and the ultimate outcome.

Click here to read the full article: Endo is Stocking up at Least $520M to Cover Vaginal Mesh Lawsuit Legal Costs

On the same day, Endo also announced it is settling with the Department of Justice for $192.7 million to resolve criminal and civil liability allegations brought by whistleblowers pertaining to claims it marketed Lidoderm, a patch approved to treat shingles pain, for off label uses including pain from diabetic neuropathy and carpal tunnel syndrome.  The resolution includes a deferred prosecution agreement and forfeiture totaling $20.8 million and civil false claims settlements with the federal government and the states and the District of Columbia totaling $171.9 million.  In a deferred prosecution agreement to resolve the charge, Endo Pharmaceuticals Inc. admitted that it intended that Lidoderm be used for unapproved indications and that it promoted Lidoderm to health care providers for those unapproved indications.  The government alleged that, from March 1999 through December 2007, Endo caused false claims to be submitted to federal health care programs, including Medicaid, a jointly funded federal and state program, by promoting Lidoderm for unapproved uses, some of which were not medically accepted indications and, therefore, were not covered by the federal health care programs.  Of the $171.9 million Endo has agreed to pay to resolve these civil claims, Endo will pay $137.7 million to the federal government and $34.2 million to the states and the District of Columbia.

Click here to read the full FiercePharma article: Endo Pharmaceuticals and Endo Health Solutions to Pay $192.7 Million to Resolve Criminal and Civil Liability Relating to Marketing of Prescription Drug Lidoderm for Unapproved Uses

Vaginal Mesh Trial History

On February 18, 2014, Judge Joseph Goodwin granted Ethicon’s Motion for Directed Verdict at the close of Plaintiff’s case in Lewis vs. Ethicon, Inc.

Bard has lost two jury trials, settled a third case after a jury selected, and settled a fourth before trial commenced.  In July 2012, a California jury awarded Christine Scott and her husband $5.5 million after she underwent nine revision surgeries.  Scott sued C.R. Bard in 2009 over its Avaulta Plus mesh product.

In February 2013, Linda Gross won $11.11 million in her lawsuit against Johnson & Johnson’s Ethicon brand over its Prolift vaginal mesh product.  Gross had 18 surgeries.  The New Jersey jury found that J&J failed to warn patients and doctors about the risks of its mesh products and made fraudulent misrepresentations.

On August 15, 2013, after about 12 hours of deliberation, the jury found for Donna Cisson in her vaginal mesh trial against manufacturer C.R. Bard Inc, and found damages in the amount of $250,000 and $1.75 million in punitive damages.  The jury found that Bard failed to provide adequate warnings as to the defects in its vaginal mesh product and that the device was defective.  Judge Joseph Goodwin upheld the 2 million verdict in October 2013 as appropriate and that Cisson’s attorneys proved the company’s vaginal mesh was the cause of her injuries.  In Queen vs. Bard, starting trial immediately after Cisson, a settlement was reached after the jury was selected.  Finally, Bard settled Melanie Virgil’s claims that Bard’s Avaulta Plus insert caused urinary problems before trial commenced in New Jersey.

Our office represents women who have suffered horribly from these mesh products.  We remain committed to representing them to a successful conclusion of their cases.

If you would like more information, check the video below, go to our website, or contact us at 1-800-481-1615 or email us.

Trademark Notice

Endo Health Solutions and American Medical Scientific are registered trademarks.  The use of these trademarks is solely for product identification and informational purposes.  These trademarks are not affiliated with this website, and the trademarks have no affiliation with the Brandi Law Firm.  Nothing on this site has been authorized or approved by the trademarks.

, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Leave a comment

A Brief Review of The Trial Testimony and Directed Verdict for Ethicon in Carolyn Lewis Mesh Bellwether Case

Judge Goodwin 2On February 18, 2014, Judge Joseph Goodwin granted Ethicon’s Motion for Directed Verdict at the close of Plaintiff’s case in Lewis vs. Ethicon, Inc. (In Re:  Ethicon, Inc., Pelvic Repair System Products Liability Litigation, MDL Docket No. 2327, Carolyn Lewis, et al. v. Johnson & Johnson, et al., No. 2:12-4301, S.D. W.Va.).

What is a Directed Verdict?

Federal Rule 50 provides: “If a party has been fully heard on an issue during a jury trial and the court finds that a reasonable jury would not have a legally sufficient evidentiary basis to find for the party on that issue, the court may:

(A) resolve the issue against the party;”

A directed verdict is granted where the Judge decides, at the conclusion of the Plaintiff’s case, that there is no evidence to support a verdict for the Plaintiff, and takes the case from the jury who never get to deliberate or make a decision.

Basis of Ethicon’s Motion for Directed Verdict

Ethicon brought its motion on two grounds; first that Plaintiff Carolyn Lewis waited too long to bring her suit and was thus barred by the Statute of limitations.  In November 2009, Lewis, of Texas, was implanted with a Gynecare TVT (tension free tape) pelvic mesh device made by Johnson & Johnson to stop urine leakage (Stress urinary Incontinence SUI).  The medical device was marketed in 1998 by Ethicon, a subsidiary of Johnson & Johnson, for permanent implantation in women to treat stress urinary incontinence (SUI).  She filed her lawsuit in July of 2012 in Texas and Ethicon contended it should have been filed under Texas law by January or February 2010.

The second ground for the motion by Ethicon is that Plaintiff failed to present sufficient evidence of defective design. This is especially important because previously Judge Goodwin threw out Ms. Lewis claim for failure to warn. (see below)

In its brief Ethicon wrote;

  1. On her claim for strict products liability for defective design, Plaintiff has failed establish through competent expert  testimony:

(a)    That the TVT was unreasonably dangerous as designed;

(b)    That a safer and equally efficacious alternative design was available and feasible in November 2009 that would have would have prevented or significantly reduced the risk of Plaintiff’s injury without substantially impairing the product’s utility; or

(c)    That her alleged injuries were caused by the purported defect in the product.

Since the Plaintiff is from Texas, the law of that jurisdiction is applicable.  Part (b) is a requirement of Texas law that is different from the requirements of many other States requiring the Plaintiff to show there was another safer product that would have prevented or reduced the risk of injury.  In its motion, Ethicon argued that Plaintiff failed to meet this requirement and failed to show that there was a feasible alternative that would have prevented or reduced the risk of injury.

According to Ethicon’s motion, none of the Plaintiff’s witnesses testified that a specific defect in Ms. Lewis mesh resulted in degradation or particle loss.  Ethicon’s motion states that the only Plaintiff witness who examined Ms. Lewis did not make any causal connection between her symptoms and alleged defect.  The Court granted the motion verbally and did not yet issue a written opinion.

Failure to Warn Excluded

A failure to warn case often depends largely on what warnings the doctor received from the company.  If the company did not adequately warn the inserting doctor then the patient could not have had adequate warnings and can go forward on the basis of inadequate warnings.  This would open the door to all of the information the company knew about adverse reactions, problems, etc., that it failed to place in its literature or warnings.  An important part of the claim is what the doctor was told, what the doctor read, and what information the doctor received from the company as to warnings.

MurielEarlier, Judge Goodwin removed the failure to warn case on the grounds that her implanting physician, Dr. Muriel Boreham of Dallas, had NOT read the instructions for product use (IFU) since 2002.  This was especially harmful to Ms. Lewis case because the Doctor would receive any warnings on her behalf, could evaluate the adequacy of the warnings and then instruct the patient.  Since the doctor had not read any warnings since 2002, the Court did not allow that portion of the case that would establish what Ethicon knew, when they knew it and how they failed to timely warn thus gutting the case and making it a very technical defective product case with debating scientists.

Trial witnesses who testified live or on videotape included the following;

Dr. Richard Isenberg, a urogynecologist from Philadelphia, who was the first Medical Director of Ethicon for the new division with Johnson & Johnson called Gynecare, which was established to develop and market medical devices for the female population,

Kloserhalfen

Kloserhalfen

Dr. Howard Jordi, a biochemist, whose lab did an analysis of the explants from Carolyn Lewis, testified that as long as the implant remained in situ, it will continue to degrade.

Dr. Bernd Kloserhalfen, surgical pathologist from Germany, has removed approximately 500 meshes from women experiencing complications from transvaginal mesh.

Klinge

Klinge

Dr. Uwe Klinge, who has studied mesh implants at Germany’s Aauchen University and testified in the Linda Gross trial

Dr. James Hart, a surgeon from New York who was hired by Johnson & Johnson and worked in medical affairs for Ethicon from 2005 to 2007

Piet Hinoul, former Ethicon Medical Director, who testified in the Linda Gross trial.

Hinoul

Hinoul

Dan Lamont, Director of Post Marketing Surveillance for Ethicon, quality engineer for Ethicon during the time the company began producing laser cut mesh.

Robinson

Robinson

David Robinson, M.D. is a worldwide medical director.  He also testified in the Linda Gross case. He is a OBGYN from Kansas who consulted for Ethicon and was an early proponent of the devices, doing approximately 100 insertions annually.

Dan Smith, Ethicon engineer for 36 years whose testimony included his involvement in the Matrix project looking for TVT mesh replacement.

Dr. Bruce Rosenzweig, urogynecologist at Rush University, who did about 20 insertions before stopping and has done approximately 200 removals, whose testimony included there were no studies ever done on TVT with the primary end point as safety; He did not examine Ms. Lewis.

Dr. Axel Arnaud, Medical director for Europe, whose deposition was read to the jury regarding changing out the TVT for an alternative.

Click here to read the full article: Judgment As Matter Of Law Granted In 1st Ethicon Pelvic Mesh Bellwether Trial

Vaginal Mesh Trial History

Bard has lost two jury trials, settled a third case after a jury selected, and settled a fourth before trial commenced.  In July 2012, a California jury awarded Christine Scott and her husband $5.5 million after she underwent nine revision surgeries.  Scott sued C.R. Bard in 2009 over its Avaulta Plus mesh product.

In February 2013, Linda Gross won $11.11 million in her lawsuit against Johnson & Johnson’s Ethicon brand over its Prolift vaginal mesh product.  Gross had 18 surgeries.  The New Jersey jury found that J&J failed to warn patients and doctors about the risks of its mesh products and made fraudulent misrepresentations.

On August 15, 2013, after about 12 hours of deliberation, the jury found for Donna Cisson in her vaginal mesh trial against manufacturer C.R.Bard Inc, and found damages in the amount of $250,000 and $1.75 million in punitive damages.  The jury found that Bard failed to provide adequate warnings as to the defects in its vaginal mesh product and that the device was defective.  Judge Joseph Goodwin upheld the 2 million verdict in October 2013 as appropriate and that Cisson’s attorneys proved the company’s vaginal mesh was the cause of her injuries.  In Queen vs. Bard, starting trial immediately after Cisson, a settlement was reached after the jury was selected.  Finally, Bard settled Melanie Virgil’s claims that Bard’s Avaulta Plus insert caused urinary problems before trial commenced in New Jersey.

Our office represents women who have suffered horribly from these mesh products.  We remain committed to representing them to a successful conclusion of their cases.

If you would like more information, check the video below, go to our website, or contact us at 1-800-481-1615 or email us.

, , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Leave a comment

Johnson & Johnson Mesh Trial Set to Begin

The first trial against Johnson & Johnson’s line of vaginal mesh products was set to commence February 10, 2014 in U.S. District in West Virginia.  Judge Joseph Goodwin will preside over the case, Carolyn Lewis, et al. v. Johnson & Johnson, et al., 2:12-cv-04301 TVT.  Lewis alleges complaints over Johnson & Johnson’s Ethicon-produced TVT Retropubic and Gynecare Prolift pelvic meshes.  More than 10,000 cases against Johnson & Johnson have been filed over this litigation.

Additional Bellwether Trials Scheduled

There are 9 bellwether trials that are scheduled in 2014 involving claims against Ethicon, Boston Scientific, Bard, and Johnson & Johnson.

The trial schedule for the different manufacturers is listed below:

Bard – there was a case set for February 10, 2014, but it was continued because the plaintiff key witness wife was critically ill.  That case will be re-scheduled.

Ethicon – there are six trials set and the first begins on Feb 10, 2014 and the second on 6/23/14.

Boston Scientific – there are four trials set with the first in March and the second in July, 2014.

American Medical Scientific – four trials set with the first set for 4/7/14 and the second set for 5/5/14.

Coloplast – not set yet.

Vaginal Mesh Trial History

Bard has lost two jury trials, settled a third case after a jury selected, and settled a fourth before trial commenced.  In July 2012, a California jury awarded Christine Scott and her husband $5.5 million after she underwent nine revision surgeries.  Scott sued C.R. Bard in 2009 over its Avaulta Plus mesh product.  In February 2013, Linda Gross won $11.11 million in her lawsuit against Johnson & Johnson’s Ethicon brand over its Prolift vaginal mesh product.  Gross had 18 surgeries.  The New Jersey jury found that J&J failed to warn patients and doctors about the risks of its mesh products and made fraudulent misrepresentations.  On August 15, 2013, after about 12 hours of deliberation, the jury found for Donna Cisson in her vaginal mesh trial against manufacturer C.R.Bard Inc, and found damages in the amount of $250,000 and $1.75 million in punitive damages.  The jury found that Bard failed to provide adequate warnings as to the defects in its vaginal mesh product and that the device was defective.  Judge Joseph Goodwin upheld the 2 million verdict in October 2013 as appropriate and that Cisson’s attorneys proved the company’s vaginal mesh was the cause of her injuries.  In Queen vs. Bard, starting trial immediately after Cisson, a settlement was reached after the jury was selected.  Finally, Bard settled Melanie Virgil’s claims that Bard’s Avaulta Plus insert caused urinary problems before trial commenced in New Jersey.

If you would like more information, check the video below, go to our website, or contact us at 1-800-481-1615 or email us.

Trademark Notice

Johnson & Johnson, C.R. Bard, Boston Scientific, Inc. American Medical Scientific, and Coloplast are registered trademarks.  The use of these trademarks are solely for product identification and informational purposes.  These trademarks are not affiliated with this website, and the trademarks have no affiliation with the Brandi Law Firm.  Nothing on this site has been authorized or approved by the trademarks.

, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Leave a comment

Judge Goodwin Sets Scheduling Order Leading to Multiple Trials in Boston Scientific Vaginal Mesh Cases

On December 19, 2013, Judge Joseph Goodwin issued a scheduling Order for the Boston Scientific vaginal mesh cases that will result in four hundred cases going through the pipeline to two separate trial dates on October 14, 2014 and February 15, 2015.

The Court ordered each side to pick 50 cases for each wave with Wave 1 having a deadline of January 21, 2014 for 100 cases to be selected and then discovery commencing on those 100 cases followed by trial on October 14, 2014. The 100 cases for Wave Two are to be selected on May 21, 2014 leading to a trial date of February 15, 2015. The orders may be accessed through the court’s website at www.wvsd.uscourts.gov.

If you would like more information, check the video below, go to our website, or contact us at 1-800-481-1615 or email us.

, , , , , ,

Leave a comment

Next Bard Transvaginal Mesh Trial Set for December 3, 2013

The next Bard vaginal mesh implant is set to commence December 3, 2013 in U.S. District in West Virginia.  Judge Joseph Goodwin will preside over the case, Carolyn Jones v. C. R. Bard, Inc. 2:11-cv-00114.  Jones alleges that Bard Avaulta Plus vaginal mesh implant gave her bladder spasms and caused bleeding as well as pelvic pain.

Bard Vaginal Mesh Trial History

Bard has lost two jury trials, settled a third case after a jury selected, and settled a fourth before trial commenced.  In July 2012, a California jury awarded Christine Scott and her husband $5.5 million after she underwent nine revision surgeries.  Scott sued C.R. Bard in 2009 over its Avaulta Plus mesh product.  On August 15, 2013, after about 12 hours of deliberation, the jury found for Donna Cisson in her vaginal mesh trial against manufacturer C.R.Bard Inc, and found damages in the amount of $250,000 and $1.75 million in punitive damages.  The jury found that Bard failed to provide adequate warnings as to the defects in its vaginal mesh product and that the device was defective.  Judge Joseph Goodwin upheld the 2 million verdict in October 2013 as appropriate and that Cisson’s attorneys proved the company’s vaginal mesh was the cause of her injuries.  In Queen vs. Bard, starting trial immediately after Cisson, a settlement was reached after the jury was selected.  Finally, Bard settled Melanie Virgil’s claims that Bard’s Avaulta Plus insert caused urinary problems before trial commenced in New Jersey.

If you would like more information, check the video below, go to our website, or contact us at 1-800-481-1615 or email us.

, , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Leave a comment

Big Pharma: Is Paying Big Fines More Profitable than Telling Doctors and Consumers the Truth in Marketing?

This week, Johnson & Johnson etched its name in the history books of another big pharma company that has been fined over billions of dollars due to a drug manufacturer practices of improper marketing and failure to warn.  Johnson & Johnson pled guilty to claims stemming from allegations that the giant pharmaceutical company knowingly marketed the anti-psychotic drug Risperdal for inappropriate uses and paid kickbacks to doctors and nursing homes in prescribing the drug.  The total amount of fines amounted to $2.2 billion.  This was not the first time that Johnson & Johnson has settled claims for their drug, Risperdal.  This is also not the first time that a major pharmaceutical company has paid fines for not properly disclosing while denying in corresponding civil litigation it failed to properly disclose.

Click here to read the full article: J&J to Pay $2.2B to Wrap Up Long-Standing Risperdal Marketing Probe

This is the second major fine that big pharma has been dealt in the last three months.  In July 2013, Pfizer, maker of the cholesterol lowering drug Lipitor, and the U.S. Justice department agreed to a $490.9 million settlement agreement with Pfizer’s Wyeth unit related to illegal marketing of a kidney-transplant prescription medication, Rapamune (sirolimus).  Previously, the Food and Drug Administration approved the immunosuppressive therapy for kidney transplant patients, but Wyeth also marketed it on an unapproved basis for other types of organ transplant patients, “which resulted in false Medicare and Medicaid claims”.

It was two years ago, that GlaxoSmithKline, the drug giant that produced the heavily litigated Avandia, agreed to pay $3 billion to settle United States government civil and criminal investigations into its sales practices for numerous drugs, including Avandia.  Company whistleblowers alleged that GSK improperly paid Doctors and manipulated medical research to promote sales of the drug.

The practices of improper marketing and failure to warn are at the heart of the current drug litigation occurring with the DePuy metal-on-metal hips, transvaginal mesh made by Bard, Johnson & Johnson and others, Pfizer’s Lipitor users being diagnosed with type two diabetes, Merck’s Fosamax users suffering atypical femur fractures, Actos users suffering bladder cancer, and a host of others.  When companies have block buster drugs, history has shown they often seek to expand market share through non-authorized uses to enhance profits during patent exclusivity.  This conduct is knowingly done at the health expense of the consumers through failure to tell the whole truth to physicians and holding back essential information and adequate warnings.

Drug manufacturers have historically been shown to engage in improper marketing practices, paying kickbacks to prescribers, concealing essential information consumers and their physicians need to know, denying all of that conduct beyond scores of corporate attorneys in litigation, then attempting to quietly settle the concealment and improper marketing claims with the federal or State authorities once the civil litigation has drawn near a close.

Despite the fines, the practice continues.  Why?

Obviously, Big Pharma believes simply telling the whole truth, so honest decisions can be made is not a good business practice.  Apparently, Big Pharma would rather pay the fines if it is caught, and ask the government for forgiveness while denying fault to the people injured by their failure to disclose the truth.

Contact Our Experienced San Francisco Drug Recall Lawyers Today

At the Brandi Law Firm, we help people throughout the country who have been harmed because of a defective drug or medical device such as women contracting type two diabetes while using Lipitor, people suffering from bladder cancer while using Actos,  Fosamax users suffering atypical femur fractures, DePuy ASR hip users requiring revisions or suffering toxic poisoning, and women suffering significant pain, erosion and removal of Vaginal Mesh  Instead of treating all victims of defective drugs and medical devices the same we take a different, more personalized approach with a team of experienced defective drug attorneys and paralegals working for every client.  Our goal is to provide you with information about your legal options and to help you pursue compensation and holding these drug companies responsible for their dangerous actions.  Please contact the Brandi Law Firm today (1-800-481-1615 or email us) to talk with the experienced San Francisco defective drug attorneys.

, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Leave a comment

Cisson Verdict Upheld by Trial Court

According to a report in Fierce Medical Devices, the trial court has upheld the 2 million verdict in the Donna Cisson v. C.R. Bard, Inc. transvaginal trial.  Judge Joseph Goodwin reaffirmed that the initial award was appropriate and that attorneys representing Donna Cisson successfully proved the company’s vaginal mesh was the cause of her injuries.

Donna Cisson brought her case for severe injuries resulting from her use of Bard’s transvaginal mesh.  Cisson alleged that the Bard Avaulta Plus vaginal mesh implant gave her bladder spasms and caused bleeding as well as pelvic pain.

Click here to read the full Fierce Medical Devices article: Bard Vaginal Mesh Verdict Sticks as Judge Reaffirms $2M Award

On August 15, 2013, the jury found for Donna Cisson compensatory damages in the amount of $250,000 for her injuries and $1.75 million in punitive damages after considering all the evidence from the numerous experts from each side.  The  jury found that Bard failed to provide adequate warnings as to the defects in its vaginal mesh product and that the device was defective.

Bard has lost two jury trials, settled a third case after a jury selected, and settled a fourth before trial commenced.  Bard’s implants have been targeted in more than 12,000 cases, while Boston Scientific said in an August regulatory filing that it faces more than 12,000 suits over its vaginal devices. Additionally Endo’s American Medical Systems Inc. unit faces about 13,500 vaginal-mesh claims between state and federal suits, and Coloplast and Cook face about 1,000 claims combined.  J&J faced 12,250 pelvic mesh claims through June 30, according to a regulatory filing.

In August 2013, Judge Joseph Goodwin announced the bellwether case schedule for the Boston Scientific vaginal mesh cases occurring in West Virginia.  The first set of Boston Scientific trials is set to begin 2/11/2014 and the second set commencing on 6/17/2014.

We believe that ultimately the cause of injuries suffered by vaginal mesh users will be shown to be the defects in the mesh products and the absence of appropriate warnings.  If you would like more information, check the video below, go to our website, or contact us at 1-800-481-1615 or email us.

, , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Leave a comment

Bloomberg Reports Settlement Talks in Mesh Cases

Bloomberg is reporting that C.R. Bard, Endo Health Solutions, Boston Scientific, Cook, and Coloplast are in what Judge Goodwin described a “behind the scenes” settlement talks.  Johnson and Johnson (J&J) is reportedly NOT participating.

Bard was held liable in two jury verdicts so far.  In July 2012, Bard lost an Avaulta case in a California jury trial and was ordered to pay Christine Scott and her husband over $5 million.  On August 15, 2013, the company was ordered to pay $2 million to Donna Cisson after a jury verdict.  Shortly thereafter, it settled a case in West Virginia (Queen vs. Bard and on September 13, 2013 reportedly settled Melanie Virgil’s case that was set for trial in New Jersey on September 26, 2013.

Bard’s implants have been targeted in more than 12,000 cases, while Boston Scientific said in an August regulatory filing; it faces more than 12,000 suits over its vaginal devices.  Endo’s American Medical Systems Inc. unit faces about 13,500 vaginal-mesh claims between state and federal suits, and Coloplast and Cook face about 1,000 claims combined.  J&J faced 12,250 pelvic mesh claims through June 30, according to a regulatory filing.

C.R. Bard took a $275.1 million litigation charge earlier in 2013 year related to the lawsuits, an action that led to a sizable net loss.

In February 2013, Linda Gross won $11.11 million in her lawsuit against Johnson & Johnson’s Ethicon brand over its Prolift vaginal mesh product.  Gross had 18 surgeries.  The New Jersey jury found that J&J failed to warn patients and doctors about the risks of its mesh products and made fraudulent misrepresentations.  Based on the Bloomberg report, it is too early to know if the settlement talks will continue let alone lead to a resolution.

Click here to read the full article: Bard, Vaginal-Mesh Makers, Said to Be in Settlement Talks

If you would like more information, check the video below, go to our website, or contact us at 1-800-481-1615 or email us.

, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Leave a comment

Bard Settles Another Vaginal Mesh Suit

On September 13, 2013, Bard settled Melanie Virgil’s claims that Bard’s Avaulta Plus insert caused urinary problems.  The case, Virgil v. C.R. Bard Inc. (BCR), ATL-L6917-10, Superior Court of New Jersey Law Division, Atlantic County (Atlantic City), was scheduled to go to trial on September 26.  According to the complaint, Virgil, a junior high school music teacher in Colorado, sued Bard after her transvaginal mesh device began to erode.  Virgil needed three surgeries to address urinary problems created by the insert.

Click here to read the full Bloomberg article: Bard Said to Settle Vaginal-Mesh Case Set for Trial

Bard has lost two jury trials, has settled a third case after a jury selected, and now has settled a fourth before trial commenced.  Bard faces more than 8,000 claims over the Avaulta insert.

Over 23,000 women have filed suits detailing their injuries from the mesh inserted in them.  We believe that ultimately the cause of their injuries will be shown to be the defects in the mesh products and the absence of appropriate warnings.  If you would like more information, check the video below, go to our website, or contact us at 1-800-481-1615 or email us.

, , , , , , , ,

Leave a comment

Boston Scientific Vaginal Mesh Bellwether Cases Trials Scheduled

On August 29, 2013, Judge Joseph Goodwin announced the bellwether case schedule for the Boston Scientific vaginal mesh cases occurring in West Virginia.  The following cases were selected for the first and second bellwether trials in this MDL:

  • Carol Lynn Fawcett, et al. v. Boston Scientific Corp. 2:12-cv-07497 Pinnacle
  • Roseanne Sanchez, et al. v. Boston Scientific Corp. 2:12-cv-05762 Pinnacle
  • Carolyn F. Smothers v. Boston Scientific Corp. 2:12-cv-08016 Obtryx
  • Katherine L. Hall v. Boston Scientific Corp. 2:12-cv-08186 Obtryx

The first set of Boston Scientific trials is set to begin 2/11/2014 and the second set commencing on 6/17/2014.

Vaginal Mesh Trial History

In July 2012, a California jury awarded Christine Scott and her husband $5.5 million after she underwent nine revision surgeries.  Scott sued C.R. Bard in 2009 over its Avaulta Plus mesh product.  In February 2013, Linda Gross won $11.11 million in her lawsuit against Johnson & Johnson’s Ethicon brand over its Prolift vaginal mesh product.  Gross had 18 surgeries.  The New Jersey jury found that J&J failed to warn patients and doctors about the risks of its mesh products and made fraudulent misrepresentations.  On August 15, 2013, after about 12 hours of deliberation, the jury found for Donna Cisson in her vaginal mesh trial against manufacturer C.R.Bard Inc, and found damages in the amount of $250,000 and $1.75 million in punitive damages.  The jury found that Bard failed to provide adequate warnings as to the defects in its vaginal mesh product and that the device was defective.  In Queen vs. Bard, starting trial immediately after Cisson, a settlement was reached.

If you would like more information, check the video below, go to our website, or contact us at 1-800-481-1615 or email us.

, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Leave a comment

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 170 other followers