Win for Johnson & Johnson in Transvaginal Mesh Case

The blog Drug and Device Law reports that the case Smith v. Johnson & Johnson transvaginal mesh case has been decided – in the medical device manufacturer’s favor.

According to the blog:

There are two types of causation in a warning case. There’s medical causation, meaning that the product must cause the injury. Then there’s warning causation, sometimes also going under the rubric of “legal” or “proximate” cause, meaning that the claimed defect in the warning must have affected the recipient’s (here, the physician under the learned intermediary rule) conduct in some way that caused injuy.

The article further states: “In Smith, only the latter – warning causation – was seriously in dispute.”
Transvaginal mesh complications can be devastatingHowever, what ultimately tore down the plaintiff’s case was an intermediary rule in Mississippi, stating that there is no warning case when the prescribing physician knows the risks of the drug or medical device. In this case, the surgeon who prescribed the mesh device knew the complications in advance, and even had a few prior cases reported to him. However, he decided, risks aside, it would be the best treatment for the plaintiff.

This decision comes after the landmark bellwether transvaginal mesh case on July 26th, in which plaintiffs Christine Scott and her husband were awarded $5.5 million in damages against C.R. Bard.

Not every complication with a medical device or drug is simple. Transvaginal mesh devices have been approved based on a loophole in FDA regulations, 510(k). Although the original transvaginal mesh device was recalled in 1999, new models from a variety of manufacturers have been approved based on the original ProteGen mesh device. For years, reports of women suffering complications from the devices have poured into the FDA, but no nationwide recall has been issued yet. Fortunately, several MDLs against the transvaginal mesh device manufacturers are in progress.

If you or a loved one have been diagnosed with pelvic organ prolapsed or stress urinary incontinence, treated with surgical mesh, and have experienced damaging side effects including mesh erosion and continuation of organ prolapse, you may be entitled to compensation. Contact the experienced lawyers at Strom Law Firm today. We offer free consultations to help get you on the road to recovery. 803.252.4800.

About Pete Strom

Defending criminal charges including drug crimes, DUI, CDV, mail fraud, wire fraud, bank fraud, computer crimes, money laundering, and juvenile crimes, Pete also handles Federal and State investigations. Representing individuals in Civil Matters including Class Actions, Personal Injury, Qui Tam Actions, Defective Products, Nursing Home Neglect, and Professional Licensing Defense cases. Joseph Preston “Pete” Strom, Jr., the managing partner at Strom Law Firm, L.L.C., has been fighting for justice since 1984.


  1. […] of the first transvaginal mesh cases, Smith vs. Johnson & Johnson, was decided in the medical manufacturer’s favor. However, other […]

Leave a Reply

BestLawyers.comAVBetter Business Bureau