2013 Alleged Transvaginal Mesh Complications Lawsuits Update: Resource4thePeople Reports Defendants Ordered to Provide Testimony, Documents
Plaintiffs win rulings in multidistrict litigation involving lawsuits alleging that victims suffered serious health problems from devices that may have failed. Resource4thePeople lawyers are still accepting claims from alleged victims.
San Diego, CA (PRWEB) May 18, 2013
In its latest update to consumers about transvaginal mesh failure lawsuits that have been consolidated in federal court Resource4thePeople reports that plaintiffs have won significant rulings in the litigation, according to court documents.
The rulings came in orders handed down recently in U.S. District Court in the Southern District of West Virginia, where lawsuits from across the country involving similar allegations about transvaginal mesh products have been consolidated.
The first ruling involved cases against American Medical Systems in which the company was ordered to provide two former employees to plaintiffs’ lawyers for questioning about products plaintiffs claim are defective.*
American Medical Systems had objected to the questioning and asked that the judge in the case reject the request by the plaintiffs’ lawyers.
In the second ruling involving cases against Ethicon, Inc. the company was ordered to make a witness available to testify about the company’s “Standard Operating Procedures” about each of five products cited in the lawsuits.**
Ethicon, Inc. attorneys had objected to the “scope and breadth of the topic” sought by plaintiffs lawyers but were overruled.
“Resource4thePeople is encouraged that the rulings in favor of the plaintiffs representing consumers who are alleging that they suffered serious health problems from transvaginal mesh products they claim were defectively designed and failed will continue to move forward,” said spokesman William Howell.
“It is quite common for legal tug-of-wars to occur in such large litigation but we are confident that a full airing of the evidence in this case will lead to a fair result.”
The lawsuits have been consolidated before federal Judge Joseph R. Goodwin.
Resource4thePeople is providing consumers an outline of five transvaginal mesh litigations that have been consolidated:
- In re: American Medical Systems, Inc., Pelvic Repair Systems Products Liability Litigation (MDL-2325)
- In re: Boston Scientific Corp., Pelvic Repair System Products Liability Litigation (MDL-2326)
- In re: C. R. Bard, Inc. Pelvic System Products Liability Litigation (MDL-2187)
- In re: Ethicon, Inc., Pelvic Repair System Products Liability Litigation (MDL-2327)
- In Re: Coloplast Corp. Pelvic Support System Products Liability Litigation (MDL-2387)
The lawsuits involve allegations that mesh products that were implanted in women´s bodies to treat pelvic organ prolapse or incontinence failed and caused them to suffer serious side effects, including infections, organ damage, vaginal pain and other health problems, according to the court files.
The West Virginia cases are one of several multi-district litigations involving transvaginal mesh, including one in New Jersey in which Bloomberg News reported on Feb. 28, 2013 *** that a jury awarded over $11 million in compensatory and damages to a South Dakota woman.
Resource4thePeople said that the total verdict of $11.1 million against pharmaceutical giant Johnson & Johnson and its Ethicon subsidiary has generated such a significant number of inquiries from transvaginal mesh patients that additional lawyers are now available to assist other women who may have suffered similar complications.
Resource4thePeople’s national network of lawyers are offering free legal consultations to consumers inquiring about their legal options involving allegations of transvaginal mesh complications.
The South Dakota woman’s lawsuit**** was the first to go to trial from among 2,100 transvaginal mesh lawsuits consolidated in New Jersey.
The Bloomberg News report said lawyers for the woman, Linda Gross, told jurors the defendants failed to warn the woman’s surgeon of the risks of its Gynecare Prolift implant and fraudulently misled her about the risks.
According to the court file in the case, the 47-year-old Gross filed allegations complaining of constant pain and said she was forced to undergo 18 operations to repair abdominal injuries she suffered after having the device implanted to treat her pelvic organ prolapse.
Resource4thePeople spokesman Howell said consumers are often inquiring about whether it is too late to file a lawsuit on their behalf.
“The answer, in most cases, is no,” said Howell. “Every case is different, however, and the easiest solution is for consumers to contact us for a free legal consultation.”
Resource4thePeople also is recommending that women who have suffered health problems from transvaginal mesh products familiarize themselves with Food and Drug Administration warnings of “serious complications associated with transvaginal placement of surgical mesh for pelvic organ prolapse.”*****
In the warning issued to health care professionals, the FDA cited recent medical literature which revealed that:
- Mesh used in transvaginal POP repair introduces risks not present in traditional non-mesh surgery for POP repair.
- Mesh placed abdominally for POP repair appears to result in lower rates of mesh complications compared to transvaginal POP surgery with mesh.
- There is no evidence that transvaginal repair to support the top of the vagina (apical repair) or the back wall of the vagina (posterior repair) with mesh provides any added benefit compared to traditional surgery without mesh.
- While transvaginal surgical repair to correct weakened tissue between the bladder and vagina (anterior repair) with mesh augmentation may provide an anatomic benefit compared to traditional POP repair without mesh, this anatomic benefit may not result in better symptomatic results.
*In re: American Medical Systems, Inc., Pelvic Repair Systems Products Liability Litigation (MDL-2325)
** In re: Ethicon, Inc., Pelvic Repair System Products Liability Litigation (MDL-2327)
****Gross v. Gynecare Inc., Atl-L-6966-10, Superior Court of Atlantic County, New Jersey (Atlantic City)
For the original version on PRWeb visit: http://www.prweb.com/releases/prweb2013/5/prweb10743156.htm