Nov. 25, 2016 – San Diego, CA – Just days before Southern West Virginia district court recessed for the Thanksgiving holiday, C.R. Bard Inc. agreed to settle seven transvaginal mesh lawsuits for undisclosed amounts, and 17 more are slated for settlement by February.

U.S. District Judge Joseph R. Goodwin dismissed seven lawsuits against Bard and its transvaginal mesh products, saying all the claims had been “compromised and settled.” The order came down Nov. 22, one week after plaintiffs filed joint motions to dismiss their cases with prejudice, barring them from filing the same claims against Bard in the future.

Bard and plaintiffs in 17 other cases have also agreed to settle claims for undisclosed amounts. Judge Goodwin ordered the parties to submit agreed orders of dismissal by Feb. 17, 2017. Should the parties fail to submit these orders, the court will meet and decide the appropriate actions to take, Judge Goodwin advised in his order.

These cases are among the dozens of lawsuits settled between plaintiffs and Bard Inc. this fall. They were a few of the tens of thousands of transvaginal mesh lawsuits filed in recent years against one of seven mesh manufacturers: C.R. Bard, American Medical Systems, Boston Scientific, Ethicon, Coloplast Corp., Cook Medical, and Neomedic.

The lawsuits were consolidated into one of seven multidistrict litigation (MDL) in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of West Virginia between 2010 and 2013 with Judge Goodwin presiding over all seven.

More than 61,000 cases were pending in the seven MDLs as of Nov. 15, about 8,000 of which were brought against Bard, according to the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation’s statistics.

Plaintiffs in the transvaginal mesh lawsuits allege suffering complications after being implanted with Bard’s transvaginal mesh to treat pelvic organ prolapse (POP) or stress urinary incontinence (SUI). These conditions occur in women when pelvic muscles weaken and surrounding organs slip out of place, pushing onto the walls of the vagina. Plaintiffs say they suffered complications like mesh erosion, infection, urinary problems, pain during intercourse, and organ perforation.

The lawsuits allege the transvaginal meshes were defectively designed, manufactured and marketed, and that their manufacturers failed to provide the appropriate warnings and instructions regarding the risks and dangers posed by the devices.

The cases dismissed against C.R. Bard Inc. on Nov. 22 include Karen Myrick, et al. v. C.R. Bard, Inc (2:13-cv-09952); Traci L. Coyle v. C.R. Bard, Inc. (2:15-cv-07886); Lola Carrillo-Brown and Andrew Brown v. C.R. Bard, Inc. (2:15-cv-03570); Nicole Hesse and Alexander Hesse v. C.R. Bard, Inc. (2:15-cv-06016); Wanda Vibbert v. C.R. Bard, Inc. (2:13-cv-07074); Shannon Salzwedel v. C.R. Bard, Inc. (2:13-cv-07972); and Ardeen McCord v. C.R. Bard, Inc. (2:14-cv-13365).

The cases slated for dismissal against C.R. Bard Inc. by Feb. 17, 2017 include Gill v. C.R. Bard, Inc. et al (2:12-cv-01449); Jones et al v. C.R. Bard Inc. (2:13-cv-13499); Mullins et al v. C.R. Bard Inc. (2:13-cv-13619); Prince v. C.R. Bard Inc. et al (2:13-cv-14247); Coffman v. C.R. Bard Inc. (2:13-cv-16033); Pollnow v. C.R. Bard Inc. (2:13-cv-16115); Paez v. C.R. Bard Inc. (2:13-cv-16157); Lee et al v. C.R. Bard Inc. (2:13-cv-16198); Ashford v. C.R. Bard Inc. (2:13-cv-19010); Del Castillo et al v. C.R. Bard Inc. (2:13-cv-19072); Bonsall v. C.R. Bard, Inc. (2:13-cv-19179); Foreman v. C.R. Bard, Inc. (2:13-cv-19564); Stiles et al v. C.R. Bard, Inc. (2:13-cv-20273); Yarkosky v. C.R. Bard, Inc. (2:13-cv-20278); Denny v. C.R. Bard, Inc. et al (2:13-cv-25388); Whitcomb et al v. C. R. Bard, Inc. (2:14-cv-17176); and Bolick v. C.R. Bard, Inc. (2:15-cv-08455).

Bard wins summary judgment on negligence claims in TVM lawsuit

Nov. 25, 2016 – San Diego, Ca – U.S. District Court Judge Joseph Goodwin granted partial summary judgment to C.R. Bard Inc. in a transvaginal mesh case pending in the Southern District of West Virginia.

Judge Goodwin granted Bard partial summary judgment with respect to plaintiffs’ claims for manufacturing defect, breach of implied warranty, breach of express warranty, and negligent inspection, packaging, marketing, and selling, according to the judge’s Nov. 15 order.

Bard filed its motion for partial summary judgment back in January 2015, arguing plaintiffs did not have enough evidence to back up their claims of negligence.

In his order, Judge Goodwin agreed with the defendant and awarded Bard partial summary judgment, saying:

“… [A]part from reciting allegations that form the plaintiffs’ failure to warn and design defect claim, the plaintiffs do not offer sufficient support to create a genuine dispute that Bard breached legal duty that caused the plaintiffs’ injuries in their ‘inspection, marketing, labeling, packaging, or selling’ of the Avaulta.”

The named plaintiff in the case, Donna Kaiser, was implanted with a Bard Avaulta mesh in Florida in 2008 before suffering complications.

Kaiser and her husband, the other named plaintiff in the case, accused Bard of not testing its mesh product to ensure it was safe before putting it on the market.

Other claims brought by the Kaisers against Bard were not affected by the Nov. 15 order, including claims of failure to warn and design defects.

Plaintiffs’ claims for punitive damages were also saved by Judge Goodwin Nov. 15 when he struck down Bard’s motion to dismiss, also filed back in January 2015.

Bard filed the motion, asking Judge Goodwin to dismiss the punitive damage claims brought by all Florida plaintiffs in the MDL. Judge Goodwin denied Bard’s motion, saying it was too early in the proceedings to take claims for punitive damages off of the table.

The case is Donna Kaiser et al v. C.R. Bard Inc. (2:12-cv-03655) in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of West Virginia.

Transvaginal Mesh Lawsuits

There are tens of thousands of transvaginal mesh lawsuits pending in the Southern District of West Virginia against several manufacturers, including C.R. Bard Inc. Women allege suffering serious complications after being implanted with the mesh, including erosion, organ perforation, and infection. Some of these women have received multi-million-dollar awards from jury trials, including one woman who won $12.5 million from her case in Philadelphia state court.

There is still time to file a Transvaginal Mesh Lawsuit, but with cases settling every month and statutes of limitation running out, it is important that you act now. Call the experienced attorneys at Hood National Law Group to see if you qualify for a transvaginal mesh lawsuit. There is no cost and no obligation. Call 1-800-214-1010 today or use the form on the right-hand side of your screen.