• transit disasters
  • workers compensation
  • airline accidents
  • nursing home negligence
  • Injured Children
  • 18 wheel truck accidents
  • social security disability

Bard Vaginal Mesh Lawsuit Settles

Written by Auto Accident. Posted in Accidents Injuries Wrongful Death, Class Action Lawsuits, Vaginal Mesh Lawsuit News

As our vaginal mesh lawyers continue to file vaginal mesh lawsuits we are alerted to the fact that Bard has settled another vaginal mesh lawsuit. Although we do not know the settlement amount, it appears the vaginal mesh manufacturers are starting to see the results of their injuries to women.

 By Jef Feeley – Sep 14, 2013 12:01 AM ET
C.R. Bard Inc. agreed to settle a woman’s claims that one of its vaginal-mesh implants caused internal problems before a trial set for this month in New Jersey, two people familiar with the accord said.
Bard officials agreed to pay an undisclosed sum to resolve Melanie Virgil’s claims that Bard’s Avaulta Plus insert caused urinary problems, said the people, who asked not to be named because they weren’t authorized to speak publicly about the settlement. Virgil’s case had been set for a Sept. 23 trial in state court in Atlantic City, according to court dockets.
It’s the second vaginal-mesh case Bard settled since a federal jury in Charleston, West Virginia, ordered the device maker last month to pay $2 million to a woman who blamed the company’s Avaulta devices for her injuries.
Bard, based in Murray Hill, New Jersey, faces more than 8,000 claims over the Avaulta line of inserts, which women allege can cause organ damage and make sexual intercourse painful when the devices erode. Johnson & Johnson (JNJ), Endo Health Solutions Inc. (ENDP) and Boston Scientific Corp. (BSX) face similar claims that their implants, threaded in place through vaginal incisions, shrink over time.
Scott Lowry, a Bard spokesman, didn’t immediately return phone and e-mail messages yesterday seeking comment on the settlement. Don Migliori, one of Virgil’s lawyers, declined to comment yesterday on the settlement.
Cases Consolidated
Many of the implant cases against Bard and other manufacturers have been consolidated before U.S. District Judge Joseph Goodwin in Charleston for pretrial information exchanges. Other cases have been filed in state courts in New Jersey, Missouri and California.
Bard officials pulled the Avaulta implants off the market last year after the U.S. Food and Drug Administration ordered all makers of the devices to study rates of organ damage, infection and pain during sex linked to their products.
A California state court jury last year found Bard liable for a woman’s injuries related to an Avaulta implant in the first case to go trial in a U.S. court. Jurors said the company should pay $5.5 million in damages. Bard is liable for only $3.6 million under that state’s law.
The West Virginia jury concluded Aug. 15 that Bard should pay $250,000 in compensatory damages and $1.75 million in punitive damages to Donna Cisson, a nurse from Georgia who had an Avaulta Plus device implanted. Cisson said the mesh damaged her organs and caused other ailments, in the first case to be tried in federal court.
Virgil, a junior high school music teacher in Colorado, sued Bard after her Avaulta Plus device began to erode, according to court filings. The 56-year-old women said she needed three surgeries to address urinary problems created by the insert, according to the filings.
The case is Virgil v. C.R. Bard Inc. (BCR), ATL-L6917-10, Superior Court of New Jersey Law Division, Atlantic County (Atlantic City). The Bard consolidated cases are In re C.R. Bard Inc. Pelvic Repair System Products Liability Litigation, 10-md-02187, U.S. District Court, Southern District of West Virginia (Charleston).

Vaginal Mesh Lawsuits Are Progressing, Vaginal Mesh Settlements Announced

Written by Auto Accident. Posted in Accidents Injuries Wrongful Death, Catastophic Injuries, Class Action Lawsuits, Dangerous Devices and Surgical Implants, Vaginal Mesh Lawsuit News

The vaginal mesh bellwether trials are proceeding with 2 positive settlements that will set the tone for expectations of future vaginal mesh lawsuit settlements. Vaginal mesh lawyers applaud jury verdicts in favor of the injured women.

A jury has decided for the vaginal mesh victim in the first of over 4,550 lawsuits in the multidistrict C.R. Bard Inc. Pelvic Repair System Products Liability Litigation (MDL No. 2187). Donna Cisson, who suffered severe injuries after the implantation of Bard’s Avaulta Plus Posterior BioSynthetic Support System, was awarded $250,000 in compensatory damages plus $1.75 million in punitive damages.

A Bakersfield woman was awarded a  Vaginal Mesh Claim Jury verdict of approx $5.5 million dollars. The woman, Christine Scott, sued the manufactures of surgical mesh C.R. Bard Inc. due to side effects caused by vaginal mesh. The woman was awarded $5 million dollars for pain and suffering after 9 different surguries were apparently needed to correct her problems. The woman's husband was also awarded $500,000 for his loss of intimacy.

On Feb. 25, 2013, a New Jersey jury awarded $3.35 million to a South Dakota woman who had to undergo more than a dozen surgeries  to repair damage caused a vaginal mesh implant manufactured by Johnson & Johnson’s Ethicon unit.

As we can see there is a trend here. Jury's are outraged at the neglignce of these manufacturers and are siding with the injured victims. There are thousands of women with a implanted mesh. Many are just starting to realize their complications are from a mesh.

Many states have reached the statute of limitations cut off date on July 13th 2013. However, we have attorneys that are still accepting mesh lawsuits from all states. You are encouraged to file your vaginal mesh lawsuit immediately.

Florida Vaginal Mesh Lawsuits Continue At a Rapid Rate

Written by Auto Accident. Posted in Class Action Lawsuits, Dangerous Devices and Surgical Implants, Dangerous Drugs, Injury Lawsuit News, Pelvic Mesh Lawsuits, Vaginal Mesh Lawsuit News

Injury Lawyer Network Vaginal Mesh Lawsuit Department Accepting Transvaginal Mesh Injury Cases

The vaginal mesh has been used in mass in women nationwide for uterus, bladder and bowel prolapse as well as urinary incontinence. The only problem is that these Prolene mesh are failing and the lawsuits cannot keep up with this rapid failure rate. This is what happens when manufacturers push their products thru on the FDA "fast track".

A Prolene mesh is a synthetic plastic which has been either attached to the pelvic wall or wrapped around the uretha, When these mesh start to fail it is no laughing matter. Women are suffering severe complications, doctors have not been responsive and vaginal mesh lawyers are filing mesh lawsuits nationwide. There are a number of manufacturers and a huge number of mesh products. Do not be confused, no matter what the name, if you have a failed mesh with symptoms of, increased incontinence, severe pain, infections, bleeding, severe pain during relations, and the mesh protruding into the vaginal canal you may be a victim of a failed vaginal  mesh.

See a urogynecologist and call immediately to get on the list for the vaginal mesh lawsuits against

AMS Vaginal Mesh lawyer,

Ethicon vaginal mesh lawyer

C.R Bard vaginal mesh lawyer

Boston Scientific Vaginal mesh lawyer

Coloplast vaginal mesh lawyer

Mentor vaginal mesh lawyer

and others

Latest Vaginal Mesh Lawsuit News

 American Medical Systems Caldera Desara Sling Lawsuits

A transvaginal mesh lawsuit was filed against American Medical Systems Inc. in the Superior Court of Los Angeles on June 6, 2013. The complaint stated that the “Caldera Desara Sling System” and “Xenform Mesh” caused the plaintiff to suffer organ perforation and painful intercourse. As a result of the allegedly defective medical device, the plaintiff underwent transvaginal mesh revision surgery and continues to suffer from irreversible damage.

Plaintiff claims “permanent injury”

The plaintiff had the device implanted on May 16, 2008 at the POH Regional Medical Center in Pontiac, Michigan. The product was intended to treat the patient’s stress urinary incontinence and pelvic organ prolapse. However, the lawsuit states that, as a result of the defective device, she has suffered “significant mental and physical pain and suffering, has sustained permanent injury, will likely undergo further corrective surgery, autoimmune disorders, has suffered financial or economic loss, including but not limited to, obligations for medical services and expenses, and has endured impaired physical relations.”
Vaginal mesh attorney makes allegations

The plaintiff’s transvaginal mesh lawyer contends that the manufacturers are guilty of “wrongful conduct, acts, omissions and fraudulent misrepresentations.”

The suit contends that American Medical Systems failed to disclose the risks involved and knowingly released dangerous products into the marketplace. Reported injuries and complications included: mesh erosion, blood loss, neuropathy, infection, inflammation, scar tissue, painful intercourse, blood loss, chronic pelvic pain, nerve damage, fecal incontinence, organ prolapse, and other issues.

Women were forced to undergo surgeries to remove parts of their genitalia, receive injections in the spine, and take prescriptions of medications that they would need to be on indefinitely.
Specific causes of action for the transvaginal mesh lawsuit include:

    Strict products liability – failure to warn
    Strict products liability – design defect
    Negligence
    Breach of implied warranty
    Breach of express warranty
    Deceit by concealment
    Negligent misrepresentation
    Intentional misrepresentation

Florida Vaginal Mesh Lawyers Seek Damages

The plaintiff, through her transvaginal mesh lawyer, is seeking compensation for past and future damages, past and future economic loss, loss of earnings and impaired earning capacity, past and future medical expenses, past and future mental distress, punitive damages, attorney’s fees, interest, and any other relief the judge deems necessary and proper.
Surgical mesh litigation background

According to the lawsuit, there has been a litany of complaints over vaginal mesh implants for nearly a decade. The most common complaints were hardening of the mesh, erosion, extrusion, chronic pain and painful intercourse. Studies showed the rate of erosion to be 13 percent, with painful intercourse rates as high as 63 percent. Analysis of the first 100 transvaginal mesh procedures revealed a failure rate of  17 percent.

In 2004, the World Health Organization called the vaginal mesh failure rates “unacceptable.” On October 20, 2008, the FDA issued a public health notification describing over 1,000 adverse events related to pelvic mesh repair systems.

To date, more than 4,000 women have secured the services of a qualified transvaginal mesh lawyer to file complaints against manufacturers of vaginal mesh systems. Defendants in these cases include Ethicon (Johnson & Johnson), Boston Scientific, Coloplast, and more.
 

 

Send all inquiries to: Injury Lawyer Network

7050 W. Palmetto Park Road, Boca Raton, FL 33433
Attorneys who cover Boca Raton, Delray Beach, and Palm Beach County

1401 Broadway, New York, NY 10018

20 N.Orange Ave, Orlando, FL 32801
Attorneys who cover Orlando, Winter Park, Winterhaven, Kissimmee,Ocala,Atlamonte Springs,Deland,Melbourne, Daytona. Orange,Osceola,Seminole,Lake,Volusia, Polk and Brevard Counties

5713 Corporate Way, West Palm Beach, FL
Attorneys who cover: Lake Worth, West Palm Beach, Jupiter, Stuart,Port St Lucie, Okeechobee, Belle Glade, Vero Beach, Palm Bay Palm Beach, Martin, St Lucie and Indian River counties

200 Biscayne Blvd., Miami, FL 33131
Attorneys who cover Miami, Hialeah, Miami Beach and the Florida Keys including all of Dade and Monroe counties

110 E. Broward Blvd., Ft. Lauderdale , FL 33301
Attorneys who cover Hollywood,Fort Lauderdale,Pompano, Deerfield Beach, Coral Springs and all of Broward County

3630 W. Kennedy Blvd., Tampa, FL 33360
Attorneys who cover Tampa, Brandon, Clearwater, St Pete, New Port Richey, Brooksville, Sarasota, Naple, Venice, Bradenton, Fort Myers, Cape Coral and all of Hernanado, Citrus, Pasco, Pinnellas, Hillsboro, Sarasota, Manatee, Lee and Collier counties.

10151 Deerwood Park # 200-250, Jacksonville, FL
Attorneys who cover  Jacksonville, Jacksonville Beach, St. Augustine, Orange Park all of Northeast Florida including Marion Sumter, Flager and Duval counties. Also Attorneys who cover Northwest Florida including: Tallahassee, Pensacola, Panama City and Starke.

233 Peachtree Street N.E., Atlanta, GA 30303
Attorneys who cover Atlanta, Decatur, Roswell, Marietta, Jonesboro, Gainesville, New Smyrna, Fayetteville, Buford, Cartersville, Lilburn, Macon, Augusta, Savanah, and all of Georgia.

1001 G Street NW, Washington, DC 20001

4201 Wilshire Blvd., Los Angeles, CA 90010

Alabama: No representation is made that the quality of the legal services to be performed is greater than the quality of legal services performed by other lawyers.

Colorado: Colorado does not certify attorneys as specialists in any field.

Florida: The hiring of a lawyer is an important decision that should not be based solely upon advertisements. Before you decide, ask us to send you free written information about our qualifications and experience.

Iowa: The determination of the need for legal services and the choice of a lawyer are extremely important decisions and should not be based solely upon advertisements or self-proclaimed expertise. This disclosure is required by rule of the Supreme Court of Iowa.

NOTICE TO THE PUBLIC: Memberships and offices in legal fraternities and legal societies, technical and professional licenses, and memberships in scientific, technical and professional associations and societies of law or field of practice do not mean that a lawyer is a specialist or expert in a field of law, nor do they mean that such a lawyer is necessarily any more expert or competent than any other lawyer. All potential clients are urged to make their own independent investigation and evaluation of any lawyer being considered. This notice is required by rule of the Supreme Court of Iowa.

Kentucky and Oregon: THIS IS AN ADVERTISEMENT.

Mississippi: The Mississippi Supreme Court advises that a decision on legal services is important and should not be based solely on advertisements.

Missouri: Neither the Supreme Court of Missouri nor the Missouri Bar reviews or approves certifying organizations or specialist designations.

Nevada: The State Bar of Nevada does not certify any lawyer as a specialist or expert.

New Mexico: LAWYER ADVERTISEMENT.

Tennessee: None of the attorneys in this firm are certified as a Civil Trial, Criminal Trial, Business Bankruptcy, Consumer Bankruptcy, Creditor's Rights, Medical Malpractice, Legal Malpractice, Accounting Malpractice, Estate Planning or Elder Law specialist by the Tennessee Commission on Continuing Legal Education and Specialization. Certification as a specialist in all other listed areas is not currently available in Tennessee.

Texas: Unless otherwise stated, attorneys claiming certification in an area of law are not certified by the Texas Board of Legal Specialization. Texas lawyers may participate in a privately sponsored internet service that obtains information over the internet from potential clients about their legal problems and forwards the information to lawyers who have paid to participate in the internet service.

Wyoming: The Wyoming State Bar does not certify any lawyer as a specialist or expert. Anyone considering a lawyer should independently investigate the lawyer's credential and ability, and not rely upon advertisements or self-proclaimed expertise. *** If you do not have the money to hire an attorney, you should call the legal aid office in your area. Because the law does change, this site and the information in it may have become outdated. You should be aware that changes may have taken place in the law or in court rules that would affect the accuracy of anything shown here.