Mesh Lawsuits Filed: Ten-Thousand and Growing

Oct 17th, 2012 | By | Category: Featured

 

iStockphoto image

October 17, 2012 ~ Court cases filed around the country naming six mesh makers currently number 10,000 and are growing, some at a rate of 100 new cases filed a week.

MDND has added up the number of lawsuits pending in federal court consolidated in multidistrict litigation (MDL) as well as those cases filed in New Jersey and in Georgia.

There were 200 lawsuits filed against mesh maker, Ethicon (Johnson & Johnson) alone in federal court since September 30.

Here are the numbers of cases consolidated in the Southern District of West Virginia before the Honorable Judge Joseph Goodwin. This is called multidistrict litigation because consistent court rulings allow the cases to move through the courts with more expediency.

Each case can still be tried individually and will be awarded on its individual merit.

So. District of West Virginia as of October 16, 2012:

American Medical Systems, Inc. (MDL No. 2325),                                              1,887
Boston Scientific Corp. and Ethicon, Inc. (MDL No. 2326),                                1,179
Ethicon, Inc. (MDL No. 2327) and                                                                      1,854
C.R. Bard, Inc. (MDL No. 2187) and                                                                   1,307
Coloplast  (MDL No. 2387)                                                                                      40

 

In Atlantic City, New Jersey Superior Court before the Honorable Judge Carol Higbee, as of October 16, 2012:

C.R. Bard is facing there have been 312 cases filed against C.R. Bard

Gynecare, a division of Johnson & Johnson has had 1,693 cases filed


In the Middle District of Georgia:

These are cases filed against Mentor concerning its Ob tape. As of October 16, they number 143 cases.

Total for MDL and New Jersey and Georgia= 8,415 lawsuits filed against seven mesh makers for injuries sustained after women were implanted with synthetic mesh and suffered injuries including mesh erosion, perforation of organs, nerve entrapment, pain, disability, and other outcomes.

This number does not include various lawsuits filed by individuals in state courts around the country.

Background

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration outlined the potential for complications in its July 2011 Safety Communication (here)  and stated that these complications are “not rare” [their emphasis] and that,

“it is not clear that transvaginal POP repair with mesh is more effective than traditional non-mesh repair in all patients with PO and it may expose patients to greater risk.”

POP is pelvic organ prolapse while SUI is stress urinary incontinence, two conditions which are treated with synthetic mesh made of polypropylene.  While the FDA has issued this warning about pelvic organ prolapse mesh, it has not come to the same conclusions about SUI mesh, though it is made of the same material and many of the women who have filed lawsuits have similar complaints or injury and disability.

 

“The FDA continues to evaluate the effects of using surgical mesh to repair SUI and will communicate these findings at a later date.”

 

From January 2008 through December 2010, the agency received 2,874 reports of compolications associated with surgical mesh devices used to repair POP and SUI with 1,503 reports associated with POP repairs and 1,371 associated with SUI repairs. It is predicted these numbers represent anywhere from 1% to 10% of real-life incidents since the FDA database for adverse events is little known and difficult to navigate.

Deb Contestabile

Mesh patient Deb Contestabile recently asked what’s happened to the SUI conclusions by the FDA? (here).  Mesh Medical Device News Desk (MDND) featured the 46-year-old as its most recent Patient Profile (here).

 

Learn More:

FDA Safety Notification, July 2011
http://www.fda.gov/MedicalDevices/Safety/AlertsandNotices/ucm262435.htm

 

NJ Superior Court/ Judge Carol Higbee NJ – Bard
http://www.judiciary.state.nj.us/mass-tort/pelvicmesh/bard/bard-case.pdf

NJ Superior Court / Gynecare
http://www.judiciary.state.nj.us/mass-tort/pelvicmesh/gynecare/gynecare-case.pdf

 

Middle District of Georgia
https://ecf.gamd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/AsccaseDisplay.pl?75532


Southern District of West Virginia/ Bard Cases

http://www.wvsd.uscourts.gov/MDL/avaulta/cases/recordList.cfm

So District West Virginia/ American Medical Systems
http://www.wvsd.uscourts.gov/MDL/amsinc/cases/recordList.cfm

So. District West Virginia/ Boston Scientific
http://www.wvsd.uscourts.gov/MDL/boston/cases/recordList.cfm

So. District of West Virginia/Ethicon
http://www.wvsd.uscourts.gov/MDL/ethicon/cases/recordList.cfm

So. District of West Virginia/ Coloplast
http://www.wvsd.uscourts.gov/MDL/2387/cases/recordList.cfm

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

4 Comments to “Mesh Lawsuits Filed: Ten-Thousand and Growing”

  1. Amy G says:

    Any updates on the cases to be heard in Commonwealth court in MA early this year?

  2. anurse says:

    There are almost as many SUI cases as POP cases so I don’t understand how the OB-GYN Panel can say that the SUI complications are “manageable” and not require the same studies! The mesh is basically the same product and is placed BLINDLY in roughly the same area of the body. It simply makes no sense!

  3. Does anyone know of any lawyers in America who may take litigation for people in The United Kingdom?

    Any help would be appreciated.

    Teresa

  4. anurse says:

    In a 2009 Webinar for it’s members, the American Urogynecologic Society (AUGS) said that even in surgeons “with thorough anatomic knowledge, complications will occur” from TVM surgery because “it is a BLIND procedure”.

Leave a Comment