A California appeals court upheld an injured woman’s $5.5 million jury award for the injuries she allegedly suffered from using C.R. Bard’s vaginal mesh product, the Avaulta Plus.

The appellate panel rejected C.R. Bard’s argument that the claims of injury were false, and that the plaintiff’s injuries were from other varying factors.

Plaintiff Christine S. and her husband alleged in their vaginal mesh lawsuit that Christine had suffered severe injuries as a direct result of Bard’s negligence and from the defective mesh product.

The jury agreed with Christine, who argued that not only was Bard responsible for her injuries due to the defective product it manufactured, but because it also failed to adequately train or give proper instructions to the performing surgeons.

The company allegedly also failed to warn the hospital about possible complications, or give any vaginal mesh side effect warnings to the plaintiff.

“It should have been apparent to Bard that improper training could increase the risk of harm to the physician’s patients. Accordingly, the theory that Bard undertook to train physicians and thus had a duty to use due care in carrying out such training was properly submitted to the jury,” an appellate panel wrote in its decision affirming the jury’s award.

Overview of Vaginal Mesh Complications

Vaginal mesh is traditionally used to treat women who are either suffering pelvic organ prolapse (POP) or stress urinary inconsistence (SUI). Due to the alleged design defects of these products, women across the country have filed vaginal mesh lawsuits against manufacturing companies for the injuries they suffered.

After the vaginal mesh lawsuits reached a certain number, they were consolidated into multidistrict litigation (MDL) to help streamline the flow of similar lawsuits.

Christine’s vaginal mesh lawsuit was originally filed in 2009 after she suffered several complications due to the vaginal mesh product she used and had to undergo several revision surgeries to correct it.

Her vaginal mesh lawsuit was the first in its respective MDL to reach a verdict of this caliber, giving hope to other vaginal mesh lawsuit plaintiffs. In total, Bard will have to pay $3.6 million to Christine and her husband.

According to her vaginal mesh lawsuit, Christine had lost the ability to control even the most basic aspects of her life due to the pain she felt from the vaginal mesh product. She allegedly could not control her bowel movements and could not be intimate with her husband.

Despite the verdict, Bard continues to argue that it and its vaginal mesh product is not responsible for the injuries the plaintiff suffered.

On appeal, Bard argued that the claim of negligent design was barred after a previous jury found that it was not liable for failure to warn. While the defendant is correct that it cannot be held for that liability charge, the panel states that it does not make Bard immune from the negligence claim as a whole.

Essentially, Bard cannot be held for strict liability but it does not account for the entirety of the negligence charge against the company. The appellate court explained that strict liability focuses on the product itself, rather than the conduct of the manufacturing company.

While Bard has agreed to pay the verdict, its representatives respectfully disagree with the ruling and are considering further reviewing the panel’s decision.

Meanwhile, there are currently thousands of other vaginal mesh lawsuits being filed across the country, alleging similar charges as Christine.

Injuries mentioned in adverse effect reports include:

• Urinary Problems
• Vaginal Scarring
• Painful Intercourse
• Recurrence of POP
• Mesh Erosion
• Organ Tearing
• Bladder, Bowel, or Blood Vessel Perforation
• Vaginal or Bladder Infections

The Vaginal Mesh Lawsuit is Case No. F066039, in the Court of Appeal of the State of California, Fifth Appellate District.