Trials to start for MDL mesh cases from Southern District of Virginia

Problems with the transvaginal mesh implants made by pharmaceutical and medical manufacturers have been surfacing for many years. The product was approved by the FDA several years ago and was touted as helping females with weakened pelvic muscles treat pelvic organ prolapse and stress urinary incontinence.

However, many patients have experienced serious side effects from these mesh devices and have instituted product liability lawsuits all across the country against various manufacturers. Due to the enormous number lawsuits, transvaginal mesh device product liability lawsuits have been consolidated under multidistrict litigation.

Judgments rendered against mesh device makers

Last June, a jury in Bakersfield, California, state court rendered a $3.6 million judgment against C.R. Bard-a medical device producer and manufacturer of the mesh product-for pain and suffering the product caused to a female plaintiff.

Earlier this year, a jury in Atlantic City, New Jersey, rendered a multi-million dollar verdict against another transvaginal mesh device maker, Johnson & Johnson as well as its Ethicon subsidiary. The jury ordered the company to pay $3.35 million in compensatory damages and $7.76 million in punitive damages to a female plaintiff who experienced severe health problems after receiving the implant for her pelvic organ prolapse.

New trials

Other plaintiffs from additional transvaginal product liability lawsuits consolidated in multidistrict litigation may also soon have their day in court. A judge in the Southern District Court of Virginia issued an order to select four lawsuits from his multidistrict litigation and says he plans to start the trials on July 11, 2013.

The four lawsuits involve product liability claims against C.R. Bard, manufacturer of the Avaulta mesh products. Plaintiffs argue that the mesh devices they received to treat pelvic organ prolapse and urinary incontinence caused them serious side effects. Among a long list, they cite infection, damage to their internal organs, and vaginal pain and are seeking damages.

It remains to be seen whether the four lawsuits to be tried this summer will render the same judgment, given the precedential verdicts handed down to other plaintiffs similarly situated in previous mesh product liability cases.

Consulting with an attorney

To date, approximately 75,000 women received the mesh implants for pelvic organ prolapsed and about 200,000 additional women received mesh devices for stress urinary incontinence.

If you have received the device and are experiencing problems, legal recourse may be available. Speaking with a knowledge attorney is advised.