Transvaginal mesh products, produced by Boston Scientific and other manufacturers, are intended for repair of pelvic organ prolapse (POP) and female stress urinary incontinence (SUI). However, more than 60,000 vaginal mesh lawsuits are pending nationwide. All of the complaints involve similar allegations, indicating that the transvaginal mesh products are defectively designed and unreasonably dangerous. However, a Massachusetts jury recently disagreed with these claims.

Currently, more than 1,600 vaginal mesh lawsuits are pending in Massachusetts state court. This win for Boston Scientific came after two weeks of trial and two days of debate. The jury’s decision, involving Boston Scientific’s Obtryx sling, came after the presiding judge barred evidence alleging the manufacturer knowingly used “materials unfit for human use” and excluded plaintiff Maria Cardenas’ doctor’s testimony.

Boston Scientific isn’t off the hook, though. A bellwether trial involving their Pinnacle Pelvic Support System is supposed to begin in Florida next month, followed by another 11-case consolidated trial for their Obtryx product in West Virginia in November. These trials will be used to gauge how juries might respond to testimony and evidence. If not favorable to Boston Scientific, they may choose to settle with vaginal mesh plaintiffs, saving the courts from scheduling thousands of trials nationally.

Materials Matter

Made of strips of surgical mesh for internal use, materials matter. Plaintiffs argue that the polypropene Boston Scientific used to create the mesh wasn’t safe. “A material datasheet from a supplier warned the medical industry that the material was inappropriate for use in humans,” yet the company ignored the warnings and hid the usage plans from the supplier, the vaginal mesh lawsuit alleges.

This crucial piece of evidence was barred from the trial, as well as the doctor testimony from the Cardenas trial that discussed the mesh’s production material. Her doctor said that if he had known the “true nature of the polyproprene used to create it,” he never would have used the bladder sling. Many plaintiffs in other claims say the same.

Growing Litigation

Complications from vaginal mesh are painful, causing both physical and emotional issues. Transvaginal mesh lawsuits are being filed all over the country by plaintiffs who suffered. In many cases these women require multiple treatments and revision surgeries, adding to their burdens. Not all trials ended like Cardenas’; others have resulted in multi-million dollar verdicts for the plaintiffs.

Vaginal mesh lawsuits currently exist against Boston Scientific, Johnson & Johnson, C.R. Bard, American Medical Systems (AMS), Ethicon, Cook Medical, Coloplast and Neomedic. With thousands of cases in play, numerous multidistrict litigations (MDLs) were formed. MDLs help in coordinating pretrial proceedings, especially when lawsuits exist all over the country. With so many similar complaints, an MDL simplifies the process of discovery for the courts, and for plaintiffs, it means less court time, fewer potential costs, and no risk of varying outcomes from different judges.

The vaginal mesh lawsuits have been centralized before U.S. District Judge Joseph Goodwin, who is currently presiding over the more than 60,000 cases. He has requested hundreds of individual cases be prepared to speed up progress towards case resolution.