Saint Louis, MO (PRWEB) January 27, 2014
Over 37,000 transvaginal mesh lawsuits have been filed in federal courts by women who allege that they were injured by products manufactured by C.R. Bard, American Medical Systems, Boston Scientific, Ethicon, Coloplast, and Cook Medical, according to the most recent report issued by the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation on January 15, 2014.
Given the sheer number of cases, the Honorable Judge Joseph Goodwin, who presides over the C.R. Bard Multidistrict Litigation (MDL) pending in the Southern District of West Virginia, recently determined that he needed a more accurate census of the cases. As such, on December 31, 2013, the Court entered an Order requesting that plaintiffs’ counsel register with the Court all pending cases and unfiled claims that are or will be asserted against C.R. Bard. (In re: C.R. Bard, Inc., Pelvic Repair System Products Liability Litigation, MDL No. 2187)
Court files show that the first bellwether case in the C.R. Bard MDL resulted in a $2 million jury verdict for the plaintiff. (Cisson v. C.R. Bard Inc., No. 2:11-cv-00195, U.S. District Court for the Southern District of West Virginia) Shortly thereafter, as reported by Bloomberg on September 13, 2013, C.R. Bard settled the claims of two women who alleged that an Avaulta implant caused their injuries for undisclosed amounts. (Queen v. C.R. Bard, Inc., No. 2:11-cv-00012, U.S. District Court for the Southern District of West Virginia; Virgil v. C.R. Bard, Inc., No. ATL-L6917-10, Superior Court of New Jersey Law Division, Atlantic County) According to Court documents, the next bellwether case in the C.R. Bard MDL is scheduled to go to trial on May 19, 2014. (Jones v. C.R. Bard, Inc., No. 2:11-cv-00114, U.S. District Court for the Southern District of West Virginia)
“We are vigorously pursuing claims on behalf of women who allege that they have experienced complications from transvaginal mesh devices, including device erosion, organ perforation, intense pain, inability to have sexual intercourse, infection, and the need to undergo multiple revision surgeries,” says Kristine Kraft, of Schlichter, Bogard & Denton, LLP. Kraft further states that she is “pleased that the cases against the manufacturers of these defective devices continue to steadily advance.”
Five other federal MDLs are pending against manufacturers of transvaginal mesh devices in the Southern District of West Virginia. (In re: American Medical Systems, Inc., Pelvic Repair System Products Liability Litigation, MDL No. 2325; In re: Boston Scientific Corp. Pelvic Repair System Products Liability Litigation, MDL No. 2326; In re: Ethicon, Inc., Pelvic Repair System Products Liability Litigation, MDL No. 2327; In re: Coloplast Corp. Pelvic Support Systems Products Liability Litigation, MDL No. 2387; In re: Cook Medical, Inc., Pelvic Repair System Products Liability Litigation, MDL No. 2440)
Women who believe that they have been injured as a result of a transvaginal mesh device may be entitled to compensation. Kraft and the attorneys of Schlichter, Bogard & Denton, LLP offer free and confidential case evaluations to women who allege that they were injured by transvaginal mesh products.
About Schlichter, Bogard & Denton, LLP
Schlichter, Bogard & Denton, LLP is a unique law firm that aggressively represents its clients injured as a result of dangerous pharmaceutical medications and unsafe medical devices. The attorneys Schlichter, Bogard & Denton, LLP who represent victims harmed by pharmaceutical manufacturers include Roger Denton, Kristine Kraft, Beth Wilkins Flieger, Ashley Brittain Landers, and Tara Rocque. With hard work, creative thinking, and strong trial skills, we have earned an outstanding nationwide reputation by representing thousands of individuals who have suffered serious injuries. If you or a loved one has suffered from complications arising from the use of a pharmaceutical product or defective medical device, please contact the attorneys at Schlichter, Bogard & Denton, LLP toll-free at 1-800-873-5297 for your confidential and free consultation.
The choice of a lawyer is an important decision and should not be based solely on advertisements. Past results afford no guarantee of future results and every case is different and must be judged on its own merits.