By Sarah Mirando  |  June 13, 2013

Category: Medical Devices
{loadposition vaginal_mesh_lawsuit}

Follow us on Twitter and Facebook for the latest Vaginal Mesh Class Action Lawsuit News!
 

C.R. Bard Vaginal Mesh Implant Lawsuits Move Toward Trial

By John Curran

 

CR Bard vaginal mesh MDL rulingWhile many vaginal mesh implant trials are already underway or have resulted in jury awards for some women in the millions of dollars, the bellwether trials for C.R. Bard bladder sling implants will begin in July. In the interim, both sides have been making efforts for a beneficial court atmosphere, and Judge Joseph Goodwin has made many important rulings in recent weeks.

On June 4, Judge Goodwin denied a motion for summary judgment by C.R. Bard that would have disallowed punitive damages in the first vaginal mesh lawsuits to go to trial in the C.R. Bard MDL. Partial summary judgment means that he decides whether or not certain portions of a plaintiff’s claim regarding C.R. Bard’s Avaulta mesh implants will be decided by a jury. Developments currently favor both sides. The defense team will still have to convince a jury that C.R. Bard bladder sling implant failures should not merit punitive damages, added on as a disincentive to make or market dangerous medical devices.

However, no vaginal mesh implant lawsuit attorney will be able to argue on manufacturing defect claims because there was not enough evidence to support C.R. Bard departing from commonly accepted practices in design or production. Still, the evidence that the plaintiffs have in favor of the punitive damages claim could improve the likelihood of success in front of a jury.

Specifically, many women who complain of Avaulta transvaginal mesh implant side effects such as erosion and organ perforation found that the entire area surrounding the device was inflamed. C.R. Bard reportedly used a resin to strengthen the mesh itself that carried a warning to avoid use “in medical applications involving permanent implantation in the human body or permanent contact with internal body fluids or tissues.”

That is similar to other complaints made by women who received a vaginal mesh implant from other manufacturers and said there was pus and other signs of infection including inflammation and the implant becoming dislodged. Many say that the use of the plastic polypropylene, done to increase the longevity of the stress urinary incontinence treatment, meant that patients had to deal with a biologically incompatible material.

Women who have suffered from vaginal mesh side effects as a result of surgical implantation to treat stress urinary incontinence may have legal options. Learn about yours and get a free consultation with a vaginal mesh implant lawsuit attorney at the Vaginal Mesh Sling Class Action Lawsuit Investigation. Filling out the short form is the first step in establishing one’s eligibility to file a claim, as well as learn what the process will entail. As trials continue for many of the makers of these devices, it is important to act now to ensure you get the legal remedy the facts of your case merit.


We tell you about cash you can claim EVERY WEEK! Sign up for our free newsletter.

 

Updated June 13th, 2013

 

All medical device, dangerous drug and medical class action and lawsuit news updates are listed in the Drug and Medical Device section of Top Class Actions.

 

LEGAL INFORMATION IS NOT LEGAL ADVICE
Top Class Actions Legal Statement
©2008 – 2013 Top Class Actions® LLC
Various Trademarks held by their respective owners.

One thought on C.R. Bard Vaginal Mesh Implant Lawsuits Move Toward Trial

  1. daniel says:

    These products still do not recall outside of United Stetes. Many patient will take risk for using them. The company should conduct clinical trial, and determine the long term effectiveness and safety. The other bad behavoir of Bard you should know of it. C. R. Bard also have corrupt activity in China. Please pay attention on that: The corrupt activity of Vice president of C.R. Bard in China. Bard China is a subsidiary company of C. R. BARD. The headquarters of C. R. Bard is in New Jersey. The Corporate senior vice president, name is John Deford, he had a visiting activity in hospital of China when he visits in Shanghai on 9th May this year, and he gave gifts (price more than $100 USD, that’s two of Tiffany gifts) to a physician during visiting time, and the physician immediately used the product (name Lifestent vascular stent, price above $3,000USD) of Bard Company for patient at that time. After the visiting, he gave others gifts to marketing manager of Bard China, and let the marketing manager give those gifts to the other physician. I think that his behavior violate the FCPA and laws of China.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. By submitting your comment and contact information, you agree to receive marketing emails from Top Class Actions regarding this and/or similar lawsuits or settlements, and/or to be contacted by an attorney or law firm to discuss the details of your potential case at no charge to you if you qualify. Required fields are marked *

Please note: Top Class Actions is not a settlement administrator or law firm. Top Class Actions is a legal news source that reports on class action lawsuits, class action settlements, drug injury lawsuits and product liability lawsuits. Top Class Actions does not process claims and we cannot advise you on the status of any class action settlement claim. You must contact the settlement administrator or your attorney for any updates regarding your claim status, claim form or questions about when payments are expected to be mailed out.