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

Share this:

The Honorable Judge Joseph Goodwin

The Honorable Judge Joseph Goodwin will oversee a hearing Friday, April 13, to decide who will be the lead attorneys in the consolidated lawsuits over defective transvaginal mesh. Hundreds of cases have been consolidated in the Southern District of West Virginia in Multidistrict litigation (MDL) that name mesh manufacturers Ethicon, Inc ( MDL No. 2327), American Medical Systems, Inc. (MDL No. 2325), and Boston Scientific Corp. (MDL No. 2326).

Here is the court calendar for April 13.

What is Multidistrict Litigation?

Multidistrict litigation (MDL) means cases filed around the country in diverse federal courts are consolidated in one court for the ease and consistency of pretrial motions, discovery and rulings. Imagine the logistical nightmare if a federal judge in San Francisco made a ruling in a transvaginal mesh case, for example, that was totally at odds to a ruling in Memphis?

The plaintiffs can all share the discovery instead of launching individual efforts. When the cases are ready for trial they can be remanded back to their original forums if there is not a settlement, which is the usual outcome.

In the case of hundreds of transvaginal mesh cases, in January the cases were consolidated before the Honorable Judge Joseph Goodwin in the Southern District of West Virginia with the issue of lead attorneys to be heard Friday, April 13.

Judge Goodwin will empower an attorneys or small number of attorneys to be the “lead lawyers” and manage the plaintiffs’ side. This puts the remainder of the attorneys in a secondary position and less likely to be able to act for their clients.

According to the Fordham Law Review from November 7, 2011, (here) the “Lead Lawyers” will control the litigation and can make decisions concerning the first or “bellwether” trials with little input from their clients. The lead law firm or attorney is not allowed to put his or her own financial interests ahead of the client and may not engage in self-enriching behavior. The client must be treated fairly and Judge Goodwin will further elaborate on the fiduciary responsibilities of the lead lawyers. In the Vioxx litigation, “disabled” or non-lead lawyers submitted objections to the fee structure they said benefited the lead attorneys.

This MDL involves lawsuits filed in federal courts across the country by women who claim to have suffered injuries after being implanted with vaginal mesh products for the treatment of pelvic organ prolapse (POP) and / or stress urinary incontinence (SUI).

The Food and Drug Administration (FDA), said in a July 2011 Safety Communication, that it had received 2,874 reports of complications associated with transvaginal mesh devices used to treat pelvic organ prolapse and stress urinary incontinence between 2008 and 2010 – a five fold increase in complications which include pain, bleeding, erosion through the vaginal wall, mesh shrinkage, infection, and nerve entrapment, among other problems.

Since 2010, Judge Goodwin has also been overseeing the MDL against another transvaginal mesh manufacturer, C.R. Bard, Inc. (In re Avaulta Pelvic Support Systems Product Liability Litigation, MDL No. 2187), where Henry Garrard is the lead counsel (MDL No. 2187).  #

Share this: