90,000 Pelvic Mesh Lawsuits Burden Court, Judge Dismisses 140 Bard Cases

Judge Joseph Goodwin

Mesh Medical Device News Desk, April 27, 2016 ~ Judge Joseph Goodwin Monday dismissed 149 product liability lawsuits naming mesh maker C.R. Bard, ending the plaintiffs’ ability to file another pelvic mesh product liability lawsuit against the manufacturer ever again.

He wrote, “all claims have been compromised and settled."

Medtronic and Covidien supplied the mesh to Bard and they were also named in the dismissal, which presumably followed an undisclosed settlement amount.

Judge Goodwin dismissed them with prejudice meaning they cannot be filed again.

The multidistrict litigation involving pelvic mesh made by seven manufacturers before Judge Goodwin is the largest ever amassed in one court which, as of today, numbers 90,131 cases.

To lighten the untenable load, numerous cases have been remanded back to state courts across the country or settled and removed from the list.

Settlements, Trials

Last year, C.R. Bard said it would offer more than $200 million to settle 3,000 cases filed by pelvic mesh injured women. Still ahead and filed in Judge Goodwin’s court are 13,429 cases naming mesh maker Bard and claiming injury from its defective product.

The only other major manufacturer which has promised to settle cases is AMS, (American Medical Systems) owned by Endo International. Ethicon/Johnson & Johnson still plans to resolve the remainder of its 40,000 cases through litigation.

There are also cases naming C.R. Bard filed in numerous states and there are 1,541 cases naming CR Bard consolidated in New Jersey. See that here.

The first two product liability trials naming Bard were lost by the company.

In 2012, Christine Scott was awarded $3.6 million against the company by a Bakersfield, California jury. Donna Cisson was awarded $2 million by a Charleston, WV jury in 2013.

Bard filed an appeal on the amount which included $1.75 million in punitive damages but in January, an appeals court upheld the jury’s award.

The appeals court denied Cisson’s challenge to Georgia’s split-recovery statute. It requires the state to retain 75 percent of punitive damages with the remainder going to Cisson. The Scott case has been paid.

The appeals court also agreed with Judge Goodwin’s decision at trial, specifically that he was right not to allow evidence of the Food and Drug Administration's 510(k) approval process that allowed mesh to be sold without assurances for safety and efficacy.

During the Cisson trial, Judge Goodwin described Bard’s attempt to hide its identity in purchasing raw polypropylene resin:

Judge Joseph Goodwin

“This secretive conduct in an effort to sidestep the MSDS warnings suggests reprehensible conduct, weighting against remittitur.”

The MSDS is the Material Safety Data Sheet accompanies the raw resin and clearly says:

“Do not use this Phillips Sumika Polypropylene Company material in medical applications involving brief or temporary implantation in the human body or contact with internal body fluids or tissues unless the material has been provided directly from Phillips Sumika polypropylene Company under an agreement which expressly acknowledges the contemplated use.”

See story here.

Cisson and Scott had both been implanted with a Bard Avaulta pelvic mesh, made with polypropylene provided by Phillips Sumika.

Bard is expected to report first quarter earnings Wednesday at 5 pm when it hosts a conference call. Based in Murray Hill, New Jersey, C.R. Bard (BCR) designs, manufactures and distributes medical, surgical, and patient care devices worldwide.

Join in the conference call here.

Background

In February, Bard enjoyed one of the few trial victories in the case of Eve Sherrer in Kansas City, Missouri. Voting 10-2, jurors rejected the contention that the Bard Align and the Boston Scientific Solyx were defective. Sherrer had sought $28 million. This was the longest pelvic mesh product liability trial to be conducted stretching one month over the holiday season.

In February 2015, Bard settled with Debra Wise on the eve of trial. See story here.

Bard is facing in excess of $7 million in jury awards to six plaintiffs. In October 2014, the company offered to settle 500 cases for $21 million.

LEARN MORE:

See the dismissal here, April 25, Doc # 1903, 1902, 1901, April 25 order dismissing cases #1902; April 25 order dismissing 49 plaintiffs; April 25 2016 order dismissing plaintiffs

February 2015 – Wise v CR Bard, Settlement offered to Wise, terms not disclosed, Implanted with Avaulta Plus Anterior and Posterior BioSynthetic Support System, Charleston WV
https://www.meshmedicaldevicenewsdesk.com/new-bard-avaulta-trial-to-begin-in-charleston-federal-court

October 2014 – Bard offers to settle 500 cases for $21 million
https://www.meshmedicaldevicenewsdesk.com/c-r-bard-may-settle-500-cases-for-21-million

October 2013- Rizzo v Bard, Case is dropped by the plaintiff and Bard wants $14,000 in court costs from her. Charleston WV
https://www.meshmedicaldevicenewsdesk.com/c-r-bard-wants-14k-from-linda-rizzo-over-dismissed-transvaginal-mesh-lawsuit

September 2013 – Vigil v CR Bard, case settled by Bard for undisclosed amount. Vigil had Avaulta Suburethral Plus. Atlantic City, NJ
https://www.meshmedicaldevicenewsdesk.com/c-r-bard-settles-second-transvaginal-mesh-case-for-undisclosed-amount

August 2013 – Queen v CR Bard, case settled by Bard. She received the Avaulta Solo. Charleston, WV

July 2013 – Cisson v. CR Bard, $ 2 million for Cisson. Implanted with Avaulta Plus. Includes $175,000 in punitive damages. Charleston WV bellwether
https://www.meshmedicaldevicenewsdesk.com/cisson-2-million-compensatory-and-punitive-verdict-against-c-r-bard-upheld-by-appellate-court

July 2012- Scott v. CR Bard, $5.5 million for Scott,($3.6 million against company, remainder her physician), Implanted with Bard Avaulta Plus, Bakersfield California
https://www.meshmedicaldevicenewsdesk.com/c-r-bard-pays-precedent-setting-first-pelvic-mesh-scott-case-for-3-6-million