Lead Counsel Chosen in Transvaginal Mesh Cases

Apr 13th, 2012 | By | Category: Legal News

Friday, April 13, 2012 ~ This morning the lead attorneys were chosen who will represent the transvaginal surgical mesh product liability cases consolidated in the Southern District of West Virginia and the Honorable Judge Joseph Goodwin.

Bryan F. Aylstock (Aylstock, Witkin, Kreis, and Overholtz),  Henry Garrard (Blasingame, Burch, Garrard, Ashley)  and Fred Thompson (Motley Rice) were chosen to be lead counsel representing the consolidated transvaginal mesh lawsuits.

Five additional people are on the Executive Committee and co-lead counsel which include  Tom Cartmell, Clayton Clark, Amy Eskin, Derek Potts and Aimee Wagstaff.  

The Plaintiffs’ Steering Committee (PSC) is a team of attorneys who will oversee the entire litigation process and guide the plaintiffs’ side of the litigation coordinating the large number of lawsuits pending before Judge Goodwin.

In January, the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation granted motions to transfer and consolidate the defective product cases filed in federal courts around the country into Multidistrict Litigation (MDL) in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of West Virginia before Judge Goodwin, already in charge of an MDL involving Avaulta defective mesh (MDL No. 2187).

The consolidated MDLs are Ethicon, Inc (MDL No. 2327), American Medical Systems, Inc. (MDL No. 2325), and Boston Scientific Corp. (MDL No. 2326).

Altogether Judge Goodwin will hear 82 pending lawsuits filed in federal courts around the country against American Medical Systems, 22 cases against Boston Scientific Corp., as well as 36 actions against Ethicon, Inc.

There were 69 attorneys who stated their willingness to commit to the time-intensive process.

An MDL is a centralized process that avoids the duplication of discovery and prevents inconsistent pretrial rulings to advance the cases through the courts quicker and with less cost to the plaintiffs.

The claims of injury due to defective surgical mesh are similar among the hundreds of female plaintiffs and include transvaginal mesh erosion, shrinkage, migration, organ perforation, infection, pain, bleeding, a recurrence of incontinence and prolapse, urinary problems, dyspareunia, nerve damage, vaginal scarring, toxic shock and death.

Additionally, many of the plaintiffs were implanted with multiple defective products made by more than one manufacturer. #

 

 

Share this:
Share this page via Email Share this page via Stumble Upon Share this page via Digg this Share this page via Facebook Share this page via Twitter
Tags: , , , ,

3 Comments to “Lead Counsel Chosen in Transvaginal Mesh Cases”

  1. Trying to find a lawyer to take my case that reall y cares about ME as a person, I am fixin to have my vaginal mesh surgery for the 4th time soon, But the urologist shows no compassion for me or my painful condition…Also have an abdominal mesh to fix a hernia that has caused me pain for many years & no one cares…they just put me on pain meds & push me out the door…HELP!!!, Theresa

  2. jane akre says:

    Theresa-

    Go to our Facebook page, you may find some suggestions about not having partial removals,, sounds like they are not doing a good job for you.

  3. Hope Pagano says:

    I am looking to hear from any “Meshie’s” who developed an autoimmune disease after having the TVM procedure or any experts or persons who may posess information connecting the surgical mesh to triggerung Lupus.
    Please email me at HPagano@HopeFundingGroup.com.
    Thank you and God Bless you,
    Hope Pagano

Leave a Comment

We hope you find this a helpful resource. National News Editor, Jane Akre, began MDND with the hope of providing the latest news, information and perspective from the regulatory, industry and patient point of view, something that goes under-reported in much of the coverage of medical devices. The public is just now becoming aware that many devices do not undergo the same scrutiny as prescription drugs and are instead grandfathered in under an FDA loophole that has gone largely unchanged since the 1970s. As a result, patients become the post-market clinical trial subjects, and many suffer devastating and permanent injuries.