Pelvic Mesh Lawsuits Involving Different Mesh Manufacturers Consolidated Before One Judge Wednesday, February 8, 2012 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Bernstein Liebhard LLP reports that on February 7, 2012, the U.S. Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation ordered that three separate pelvic mesh MDLs be consolidated before one judge given that each group of lawsuits, which involve various models of surgical mesh manufactured by different medical device companies, allege similar design defects. New York, New York (PRWEB) February 08, 2012 Bernstein Liebhard LLP reports that on February 7, 2012, the U.S. Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation ("JPML") ordered that three separate multidistrict litigations involving various models of pelvic mesh implants currently pending in federal courts be consolidated and transferred to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of West Virginia and assigned to Chief Judge Joseph R. Goodwin.* The three dockets to be centralized include: In re: American Medical Systems, Inc. Pelvic Repair System Products Liability Litigation ("MDL No. 2325"); In re: Boston Scientific Corp. Pelvic Repair System Products Liability Litigation ("MDL No. 2326"); and In re: Ethicon, Inc., Pelvic Repair System Products Liability Litigation ("MDL No. 2327"). The JPML issued the transfer order because the "actions in each MDL share factual issues arising from allegations of defects in pelvic surgical mesh products manufactured by AMS, Boston Scientific, and Ethicon, respectively. Centralization therefore will eliminate duplicative discovery; prevent inconsistent pretrial rulings; and conserve the resources of the parties, their counsel and the judiciary." Transvaginal Mesh Design Defects Not Limited To One Medical Device Manufacturer Although multiple medical device companies manufacture transvaginal mesh implants, the lawsuits allege that various models of pelvic mesh share similar design defects. Moreover, the nature of the injuries claimed by plaintiffs who were implanted with vaginal mesh are also similar. Thus, notwithstanding the fact that there are multiple defendants and multiple models of these devices, the JPML determined that consolidation was nonetheless warranted. In fact, in making the decision to consolidate the different groups of transvaginal mesh lawsuits, the JPML noted that the transvaginal surgical mesh products at issue in each of the MDLs are used to treat similar conditions, namely pelvic organ prolapse and stress urinary incontinence. Thus, the plaintiffs are alleging similar injuries. Additionally, the JPML stated that "a number of these actions are brought by plaintiffs who were implanted with multiple products made by multiple manufacturers. Centralization of the three MDLs in one court will allow for coordination of any overlapping issues of fact in such multi-product, multi-defendant actions." The lawyers at Bernstein Liebhard LLP are actively filing cases on behalf of individuals allegedly injured by vaginal mesh implants. Partner Jeffrey S. Grand has been recognized as a leading transvaginal mesh attorney by his peers and has been an invited speaker at transvaginal mesh litigation conferences. Those who have experienced complications as a result of being implanted with transvaginal mesh may be entitled to compensation for medical expenses, pain and suffering, lost wages and other injuries. For more information about filing a vaginal mesh lawsuit, contact an attorney at Bernstein Liebhard LLP at (877) 779-1414 or at info(at)consumerinjurylawyers(dot)com. Our lawyers and staff understand the sensitive nature of the complications caused by transvaginal mesh and will answer your questions in a caring and sympathetic manner. Hundreds of women have shared their personal experiences with us, and we would be happy to speak with you. Read more: http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/g/a/2012/02/08/prweb9179773.DTL#ixzz1mHFivX2c
I'm closely following the outcome of this MDL and I'm curious about the outcome. I'm also shocked that the surgical pelvic mesh devices are not yet reclassified to class III, given the FDA warnings and it's intention to further investigate the safety of these products.
J&J Must Pay Damages Mesh Incontinence Implant Verdict By Jef Feeley Apr 4, 2014 12:29 AM ET Johnson & Johnson (JNJ) was ordered by a Texas jury to pay $1.2 million to a woman who alleged one of the company’s lines of vaginal-mesh implants to treat incontinence was defectively designed, in the first verdict against the company over those devices. Jurors in state court in Dallas concluded the design of the TVT-O mesh sling implanted in Linda Batiste was flawed and the 64-year-old woman deserved $1.2 million in compensatory damages, her lawyers said. They argued Batiste suffered pelvic pain when the device eroded inside her. J&J, based in New Brunswick, New Jersey, faces more than 12,000 lawsuits accusing its Ethicon unit of making improperly designed vaginal inserts, such as the slings, that damaged women’s organs and made sex painful. Most of the cases have been consolidated before a federal judge in West Virginia for pretrial information exchanges while other cases are being heard in state courts. The U.S. Food and Drug Administration has ordered J&J, C.R. Bard Inc. (BCR) and 31 other vaginal-implant makers to study rates of organ damage and complications linked to the implants after manufacturers faced a wave of lawsuits over the devices. Doctors inserted more than 70,000 mesh devices in the U.S. in 2010 alone, threading them through incisions in the vagina to fortify pelvic muscles that failed to support internal organs or to treat incontinence, according to court filings. Appeal Planned J&J officials noted the Dallas jury rejected Batiste’s claims that Ethicon didn’t provide proper warnings about the slings’ health risks and declined to award punitive damages. “The jury’s verdict on design defect is disappointing, and we believe we have strong grounds for appeal,” Matthew Johnson, an Ethicon spokesman, said yesterday in an e-mailed statement. J&J officials decided in 2012 to stop selling some lines of vaginal-mesh implants after being hit with a wave of lawsuits over the devices. The TVT-O sling Batiste, a former nurse, received is still on the market, Thomas Cartmell, one of her lawyers, said in a phone interview. “This verdict represents the first time an impartial jury had the opportunity to decide whether Ethicon’s sling products are defective and they found exactly that,” Bryan Aylstock, a plaintiffs’ lawyer helping to oversee cases gathered before U.S. District Judge Joseph Goodwin in West Virginia, said in a phone interview. “We believe this is the first of many more verdicts to come over this dangerous product,” he added. NJ Verdict Last year, a New Jersey jury ruled J&J must pay $11.1 million in damages to a woman who blamed a Prolift device for her injuries in the first case over any of the company’s implants to go to trial. The Prolift implants help support sagging organs. Lawyers for J&J, the world’s biggest maker of medical products, argued in court papers that the TVT-O slings are safe and effective and the company properly warned consumers about their risks. In February, Goodwin threw out a woman’s claims that another line of the company’s sling inserts was defective. The Texas case is Batiste v. McNabb, No. 12-14350, District Court for the 95th Judicial District, Dallas County Texas (Dallas). The West Virginia case is In Re Ethicon Pelvic Repair System Products Liability Litigation, 12-MD-02327, U.S. District Court, Southern District of West Virginia (Charleston).
Endo agrees to $830 mln settlement of vaginal-mesh cases By Jessica Dye April 30 (Reuters) - Endo International Plc said Wednesday it has agreed to pay $830 million to resolve legal claims from women who say they were injured by transvaginal mesh devices. The company said in a statement that the agreement will cover what it called a substantial majority of the mesh litigation brought against its American Medical Systems subsidiary. Endo did not admit liability or fault. Endo and its AMS unit are among several major medical-device manufacturers that have been hit with tens of thousands of lawsuits over the mesh devices, which are used to treat pelvic organ prolapse and stress urinary incontinence. As of Feb. 20, Endo and AMS together faced approximately 22,000 lawsuits over the devices, according to Endo's most recent annual filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission. Endo agreed last year to pay $54.5 million to settle an undisclosed number of mesh cases. Cases against other defendants, including C.R. Bard Inc and Johnson & Johnson's Ethicon unit, are pending. Women implanted with the devices have alleged in lawsuits across the U.S. that they suffered pain during sex, bleeding and other complications. The Endo agreement in principle is still subject to several conditions, including confirmation of medical records for plaintiffs, the company said. Endo said it had previously set aside $520 million to cover all legal claims arising from the mesh devices. Endo said it will incur a pretax, noncash charge of $625 million in the first quarter to help cover the costs of the settlement, according to the statement. A lawyer representing some of the plaintiffs, Joe Rice of Motley Rice, said the settlement would be implemented over the next year. In a statement, he called it a result of "adversarial but respectful and professional negotiation on the part of all the parties." In 2008, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration notified transvaginal mesh manufacturers about reports of potential complications stemming from the devices. In 2012, the agency ordered AMS and other manufacturers to conduct post-market safety studies and monitor the rate at which adverse events were reported. On Tuesday, the FDA said it was considering proposals to tighten safety standards for mesh used to treat pelvic organ prolapse. If finalized, the proposals would require manufacturers to submit data proving the devices' safety and effectiveness before allowing them onto the market.
