On August 5, 2013, Judge Joseph Goodwin issued pretrial Order No. 59 providing trial dates for July 14, 2014 and May 27, 2014 from the following bellwether cases.
- Carolyn Lewis, et al. v. Johnson & Johnson, et al., 2:12-cv-04301 TVT;
- Judy Brown, et al. v. Ethicon, Inc., et al., 2:12-cv-07314 TVT;
- Jo Huskey, et al. v. Ethicon, Inc., et al., 2:12-cv-05201 TVT-O;
- Tonya Edwards, et al. v. Ethicon, Inc., et al., 2:12-cv-09972 TVT-O;
The Court Order states “The Court will try the 1st and 2nd round of cases, set to begin 1/14/2014 and 5/27/2014, respectively, from these cases and in the order shown, etc.; the Court will try a Prolift case for the 3rd round of cases set to begin on 8/19/2014.”
Over 23,000 mesh suits pending in MDLs
Thousands of women experienced complications such as: device erosion, infection, organ perforation, intense pain and inability to have intercourse. Many of these women have had to undergo multiple revision surgeries to attempt to manage symptoms and have since filed transvaginal mesh lawsuits against the device manufacturers. These actions are brought by women against vaginal mesh companies C.R. Bard, American Medical System, Boston Scientific Inc, and Coloplast Corp.
Number of Cases
|MDL – 2187, IN RE: C.R. Bard, Inc., Pelvic Repair System Products Liability Litigation||
|MDL – 2325, IN RE: American Medical Systems, Inc., Pelvic Repair System Products Liability Litigation||
|MDL – 2326 IN RE: Boston Scientific Corp. Pelvic Repair System Products Liability Litigation||
|MDL – 2327 IN RE: Ethicon, Inc., Pelvic Repair System Products Liability Litigation||
|MDL – 2387 IN RE: Coloplast Corp. Pelvic Support Systems Products Liability Litigation||
|MDL – 2440 IN RE: Cook Medical, Inc., Pelvic Repair System Products Liability Litigation||
|TOTAL: 6 Multidistrict Litigations||
Donna Cisson Trial Continues
Meanwhile the trial of the case of Donna Cisson vs. Bard, 2:11-cv-00195 continues in Judge Goodwin’s courtroom. It is anticipated Plaintiffs will seek to establish that:
- Bard knew of the risks associated with Bard Avaulta transvaginal mesh and failed to inform doctors.
- Bard did not do clinical testing or studies to learn the risks of Bard Avaulta transvaginal mesh.
- Bard did not study how to remove Bard Avaulta transvaginal mesh.
- Bard marketed and sold Bard Avaulta transvaginal mesh despite knowing the material used to make it, Marlex, was not designed to implant in the human body.
- Bard did not tell doctors that Bard Avaulta transvaginal mesh was not fit for human use.
The company knew in 2002 and 2003 that synthetic vaginal mesh could cause significant erosion of the patient’s tissues, and infection.
Two Trial Verdicts for Plaintiffs
There have been two trials so far, both resulting in Plaintiff’s verdicts. However, the facts in these cases are different from many of the pending cases. 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.
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.