Judge: Vaginal Mesh Lawsuit Must Remain in MDL

On Thursday, April 8, a federal judge in West Virginia denied a request to send a vaginal mesh injury lawsuit against Johnson & Johnson back to a California state court. U.S. District Court Judge Joseph Goodwin claimed that, under Fourth Circuit Law, health care providers had been fraudulently joined to the multidistrict litigation (MDL). The suit had been originally filed in a California state court before being removed to a California federal court. It was later consolidated in a West Virginia federal court as part of the MDL.

Plaintiff Alleges Vaginal Mesh Had Design and Manufacturing Defects

Dawn Flores has accused Johnson & Johnson of manufacturing a vaginal mesh device with serious design and manufacturing defects. She also lists the health care providers as defendants in the lawsuit. In her vaginal mesh lawsuit, Flores alleges that the defendants marketed the Gynecare implant as a safe and effective method of treating pelvic organ prolapse and stress urinary incontinence. According to Flores, the Gynecare vaginal mesh device, manufactured by Johnson & Johnson, was inserted in December of 2003. When the device was removed in July 2011, it had eroded into her pelvic organs.

As a result of the vaginal mesh erosion, Flores suffered pain, infections and emotional distress. She filed a vaginal mesh lawsuit in March 2012. Two months later, the case was removed to federal court. She filed a lawsuit against her health care providers, but did not specify the reason she was suing them. The court documents did not clarify whether she was suing them for negligence or for failing to warn her about the risks associated with vaginal mesh implants. Her husband is seeking damages for loss of consortium.

Judge Rules that Case Cannot Be Removed from MDL

Johnson & Johnson claims that the healthcare defendants were fraudulently joined because all of the allegations in Flores’ lawsuit were based on products liability. In California, health care providers are responsible for providing medical services, not selling products. Because the health care providers were not responsible for designing, manufacturing, labeling or selling the product, they should not be included as defendants in the lawsuit.

Because the only allegations Flores is bringing against the health care professionals is that they provided the vaginal mesh implant and the implant injured her, Judge Goodwin found that she did not have sufficient grounds to include the health care providers as defendants in the suit. Flores did not claim that they should have been aware of the risks associated with the device. Therefore, she did not allege that she suffered any injuries due to the negligence of the health care providers. Because she did not establish any claims for negligence, implied warranty or strict liability against the health care providers, Judge Goodwin denied her motion to remand the case to a California court. As long as the parties involved in the case are from different states, it is appropriate to handle the vaginal mesh lawsuit in federal court. Because Flores is a California resident and Johnson & Johnson is based in a different state, the lawsuit can remain in federal court.

If You Have Suffered a Vaginal Mesh Injury

If you have suffered complications from a vaginal mesh implant, contact a vaginal mesh lawyer immediately. To learn more about your legal rights, visit the Transvaginal Mesh, Vaginal Sling, Vaginal Mesh and Bladder Sling Class Action Lawsuit Investigation page.