Boston Scientific’s Motion to Dismiss Some Transvaginal Mesh Lawsuits Denied
The federal judge overseeing several multidistrict litigations (MDLs) involving personal injury caused by transvaginal mesh devices has denied a motion from Boston Scientific to dismiss some of the transvaginal mesh lawsuits in the pharmaceutical company’s transvaginal mesh MDL.
The company asked Judge Joseph R. Goodwin, who oversees 5 of the 6 transvaginal mesh MDLs consolidated in West Virginia, to dismiss 4 product liability lawsuits involving Pinnacle pelvic floor repair kits, alleging significant differences in those plaintiffs’ claims and the other claims in the MDL.
“Commonalities in law, fact, witnesses and evidence originally anticipated by the court when consolidating these cases are non-existent. Any limited benefit from consolidation is greatly outweighed by the likelihood [of] jury confusion and prejudice,” Boston Scientific’s petition claimed. “Consolidation is no longer appropriate and the cases should be severed.”
However, in his August 15th decision, Judge Goodwin dismissed the motion for severance, stating that he was “unpersuaded that the barriers suggested by defendants in a consolidated trial are insurmountable or will result in the prejudice suggested by Boston Scientific.”
Boston Scientific currently faces its 2nd bellwether case in the transvaginal mesh MDL. The pharmaceutical company won the first bellwether trial, but faces 23,000 personal injury lawsuits and two additional bellwether trials in the multidistrict litigation.
Because of numerous complaints about the transvaginal mesh devices eroding, which can cause organ perforation, bleeding, infection, severe pain, and continued organ prolapse, the FDA ordered major transvaginal mesh manufacturers like Boston Scientific and Johnson & Johnson to study the devices’ effectiveness more in depth. Recently, the regulatory agency stated that it would not allow any more transvaginal mesh devices to use the 510(k) process, which allows medical devices substantially similar to previously-approved devices to get a “quick approval.” Transvaginal mesh devices today are based on one original device, the Gynecare ProLift, which was approved in 1996 but then recalled in 1999 because of the side effects.
“During the initial bellwether trial process, which was intended to have multiple individual plaintiff trials, BSC revoked its (at least) implicit consent to try bellwether cases in this court. As these 4 cases are nearing trial, and having successfully thwarted individual bellwether trials, BSC now urges that this court should reconsider its decision more than 4 months ago to consolidate these cases for trial. However, BSC conspicuously fails to mention its prior conduct, or the enormous procedural hurdles faced by this court and the plaintiffs in this MDL,” lead plaintiff Amal Eghnayem argued.
The Strom Law Firm Fights for Women in Transvaginal Mesh Personal Injury Cases
Transvaginal mesh kits were initially produced to help with pelvic organ prolapse and stress urinary incontinence. Several varieties of mesh kits exist, but transvaginal mesh specifically was supposed to produce less scarring and pain, because the procedure was less invasive. However, vaginal mesh slings can cause a host of problems, including organ perforation, infection, internal scarring, continued organ prolapse, and bleeding. If you or a loved one has pelvic organ prolapse or stress urinary incontinence, have had a transvaginal mesh device implanted, and have since experienced detrimental complications, you may be entitled to compensation. The experienced lawyers at Strom Law, LLC can help. We offer free consultations, so please contact us today, and we can help get you on the road to recovery. 803.252.4800