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.”
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.