Transvaginal Mesh Manufacturer Cannot Exclude Memos in Trial

Judge Rules CR Bard Cannot Exclude Internal Memos in Transvaginal Mesh Trial

memosOn Friday, Judge Joseph R. Goodwin denied a motion put forward by transvaginal mesh manufacturer CR Bard to exclude certain internal memos, as they might bias the court against the defendant.

Judge Goodwin ruled that the memos actually were pertinent to the plaintiff’s defective product claim.

This latest transvaginal mesh personal injury case was brought forth by Carolyn Jones, and is the fourth bellwether trial against CR Bard. Jones’s transvaginal mesh bellwether case was rescheduled several times, but will finally go to trial this Friday, January 10th. Her personal injury case against Bard was filed in December of 2010, and claims strict liability, negligence, breach of warranty, and loss of consortium for her husband.

In August 2008, Jones was implanted with a Bard Avaulta Support System to treat her pelvic organ prolapse, as well as a Bard Align sling to treat urinary incontinence. She suffered many common transvaginal mesh side effects after implantation, including organ perforation, pain, and continued prolapse.

The internal memos that Bard wanted excluded came from Bobby Orr, the former head of the company’s advanced surgical concepts division. He wrote internal memos in 2008 and 2009 about Bard’s transvaginal mesh defects, and suggested improvements to the design. Bard argued that the memos were not relevant to Jones’s case because, under Mississippi law – where Jones originally filed her transvaginal mesh personal injury lawsuit – the plaintiff must show the defect existed at the time the product left the company. Orr’s memos circulated through the company after Jones’s mesh had been implanted.

However, Judge Goodwin ruled that the internal memos tied into Jones’s claim that Bard knew or should have known about the transvaginal mesh products’ defects, as the scientific literature he references was published before Jones received a transvaginal mesh implant.

“The pre-launch, peer-reviewed body of literature referenced by Mr. Orr, and his comments respecting it, may thus relate to what Bard should have known prior to launch and the feasibility of a then-safer alternative,” the judge said.

Judge Goodwin also denied two other motions from Bard to exclude the memos as evidence, on the grounds that, had Bard taken measures based on the scientific studies before Jones received a transvaginal mesh implant, the injury might not have occurred.

“The Orr memoranda are not, in their entirety, devoted to subsequent remedial measures. They include an analysis of Bard’s existing products. That portion of the memoranda, at least, is not within the contemplation of the remedial-measure prohibition,” the judge said.

Jones’s bellwether case is the last in the Bard transvaginal mesh multidistrict litigation (MDL). The first one was decided in favor of plaintiff Donna Cisson, awarding her $2 million for her severe personal injury. The second, with plaintiff Wanda Queen, settled out of court for an undisclosed amount, and the third bellwether case was canceled before it went to court.

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 prolapsed, 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

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.

Leave a Reply

BestLawyers.comAVBetter Business Bureau