No matter the reasoning behind the withdraw, the fact remains that women will no longer be subject to this dangerous product.
Marlton, NJ (PRWEB) August 09, 2012
Last week there was a significant victory reached for victims of transvaginal mesh injury throughout the country when the first ever trial in the matter ruled in the plaintiff’s favor awarding her $5.5 million, according to Bloomberg News*. Christine Scott was the plaintiff and filed suit against C.R. Bard Inc., for the serious injuries she sustained from their vaginal mesh product. The New Jersey based Bard is just one of many manufacturers of the mesh facing hundreds of lawsuits that assert the implants cause serious injury, according to the Bloomberg report.
Upon hearing the news of this triumph in California, Union County personal injury lawyer Richard P. Console, Jr. was hopeful as to what this could mean for the hundreds of other women who have been injured as the result of mesh implants.
“This is truly a major step forward in the world of transvaginal mesh litigation,” Console said. “I have been working as a NJ personal injury lawyer for the last two decades and I have recently seen the trauma, pain, and embarrassment the mesh has caused to women.”
This award comes just a month after another company, Johnson & Johnson, announced that they would no longer be manufacturing their vaginal mesh products, according to the New York Times**. While the company’s formal statement as to the reasoning behind the withdrawal of these products was that there was simply no longer a demand for it, many speculators believe it may have something to do with the pending litigations against them.
“The removal of Johnson & Johnson’s transvaginal mesh is another major victory for women across the country,” Console said. “No matter the reasoning behind the withdrawal, the fact remains that women will no longer be subject to this dangerous product. Now we just need the other manufacturers to follow Johnson & Johnson’s lead.”
There has been controversy surrounding transvaginal mesh for years. The New York Times article explained that in 2008 the U.S. Food and Drug Administration warned consumers that the use of the mesh was associated with a number of medical complications, but said that these were rare occurences. Then in another New York Times report*** The FDA ordered that further research be conducted into the risks associated with transvaginal mesh.
No manufacturer seems apt to admitting any fault or defect with their products. Following the verdict in the Scott matter, a spokesman for Bard said in an emailed statement, “While we empathize with the complications suffered by the plaintiff, those complications are not the fault of any conduct by the company,” according to the Bloomberg article.
The future course for this area of personal injury litigation will depend a lot on the results from the FDA study, and whether or not they allow the mesh to stay on the market despite the alleged risk to patients.
Console & Hollawell, P.C. is a New Jersey based personal injury law firm that is dedicated to holding manufacturers of dangerous or defective medical products such as transvaginal mesh responsible for their ensuing injuries.
Scott vs. Kannappan S-1500-CV-266034