North Carolina Product Liability Lawyer Blog

Articles Posted in Pelvic Mesh

C. R. Bard Pelvic Mesh: North Carolina Couple Wins $68 Million at Trial

Published on: May 2, 2018 | By Clay Hodges

Seven years after filing suit, a North Carolina woman and her husband were awarded $68 million dollars for serious injuries caused by C.R. Bard’s defective pelvic mesh products.

In 2009 Mary McGinnis was implanted with the Avaulta Solo Support System and Align Trans-Obturator Yrethral Support System, two pelvic mesh products manufactured and sold by C.R. Bard, Inc. and other defendants. Ms. McGinnis was implanted with these mesh products in an attempt to treat Ms. McGinnis’ stress urinary incontinence and to provide bladder support. Shortly after implantation of the mesh, Ms. McGinnis began having severe pains from nerve damage and pain during sex. She had to undergo several surgeries to attempt to correct the problems.

Ms. McGinnis and her husband filed suit in 2011, alleging that C.R. Bard knew the pelvic mesh was unsafe at the time the products were implanted in Ms. McGinnis, and that Bard failed to warn doctors about the dangers of the Avaulta and Align pelvic mesh. At trial lawyers for Bard argued that the Defendants met all industry standards and requirements for placing the Avaulta and Align mesh products on the markets.

The Expert Witness: The Linchpin of Your Product Liability Case

Published on: November 16, 2016 | By Clay Hodges

Let’s say you are a woman in your forties, and the mother of three children. After the birth of your third child you began to suffer from pelvic organ prolapse. This condition occurs when an organ like the bladder drops from its normal position and presses against the walls of the vagina. You go to your gynecologist, who recommends implantation of transvaginal mesh (TVM), the net-like plastic product that was marketed and sold as a solution to the problem of pelvic organ prolapse. You have the surgery. Soon you begin to suffer new and different pain and new health problems. You undergo three revision surgeries to remove all the pieces of the mesh. But after the revision surgeries you still suffer from pain and incontinence. You call an attorney, who files a lawsuit against the manufacturer of the TVM product. A few months into the litigation, your attorney explains that you now need an expert witness.

Your attorney is absolutely correct: you will need an expert witness in virtually all product liability cases. And a good one. And fast. If you do not have a qualified expert witness who can make the connection between your injuries and the failed product, then in the eyes of the court you do not have a case.

Your Most Important Witness

Expert witnesses are critical members of the team that is built to win your product liability case. In fact, other than your choice of attorney, the selection of the expert witness will be the most important decision you will make to help you win your case.

Expert witnesses are common in all kinds of litigation. In a simple car crash case, a treating doctor is almost always called to testify about the nature of the plaintiff’s injuries after the crash. In some car crash cases, a second expert witness will be called to explain why a car’s brakes failed, or why the car’s airbag did not deploy. Usually this testimony ends by showing causation, “and if the brakes did not fail, the driver would not have crashed into that oak tree and broken his arm.”

In a product liability case, the expert must be able to show causation, to make the connection between the failure of the product and the injuries the person suffered. If the injured person cannot show this causation through the testimony of a qualified expert witness, she cannot win her case. In the example at the top of this post, the expert will have to be able to testify that the new pains and the new health problems were medically caused by the failure of the mesh and the need for multiple revision surgeries.

But I’m getting ahead of myself.

Transvaginal Mesh: Appeals Court Grants Injured Woman Second Trial

Published on: September 21, 2016 | By Clay Hodges

I have written about the maddening ways a product liability case can go on (seemingly) forever. An injured person may wait years to get to a jury trial. And then, if the individual wins the trial and the jury awards a substantial amount of money for the plaintiff’s injuries, the product manufacturer will appeal. You can read about appeals here. But the appellate courts are not there solely to protect big business. When the injured person loses her jury trial, she also has the opportunity to appeal. Often this is more difficult for the individual than it is for the large corporation, which has much more money and time, but appeals courts are there, in theory, for all of us, the powerful and the less-powerful. A week ago, an injured woman won her appeal and was granted a second opportunity to try her transvaginal mesh (TVM) case against Boston Scientific Corporation, which she had lost in 2014.

Let’s back up.

Boston Scientific’s Pinnacle Pelvic Floor Repair Kit transvaginal mesh was implanted in Diane Albright in 2010 to treat her pelvic organ prolapse (POP). Rather than make her well, the TVM caused her many other problems and serious injuries. In 2012 Ms. Albright sued Boston Scientific Corporation in Massachusetts over its failure to warn of the risks of the Pinnacle mesh product, as well as the defective design of the mesh.

Judge Threatens Sanctions Against Transvaginal Mesh Plaintiffs’ Lawyers

Published on: September 16, 2016 | By Clay Hodges

Let me get right to it: Judge Clay Land has a point. On September 7, 2016, Judge Land issued a blistering Order in the Mentor Corporation ObTape Transobturator Sling Mesh multi-district litigation. In a nutshell, he wrote that he was fed up with frivolous claims. Judge Land stated that he will consider money sanctions against plaintiffs’ lawyers who file and pursue lawsuits in the MDL that they know have no merit or which suffer from some fatal flaw. A fatal flaw could be the passing of the statute of limitations, or the failure to find an expert who can testify that the transvaginal mesh product caused the specific injuries to the plaintiff. In those cases, Judge Land writes, the plaintiffs’ lawyers ought to know better, and should not bring the claim in the first place, or should at the very least dismiss the action when the lawyer discovers a flaw in the case which is fatal to gaining a recovery.

The worst transgression identified by Judge Land is when the product manufacturer seeks “summary judgment” in a particular case and the plaintiff’s attorney simply throws in the towel on the case and does not even bother to show up for the court hearing. In those cases, even though the plaintiff is inevitably going to lose the case, the judge and the law clerks and court personnel and defense attorneys still have to show up and do the work of handling and deciding the motion.

Transvaginal Mesh Maker Changes Warning Label; FDA Issues Warning

Published on: August 16, 2016 | By Clay Hodges

Better late than never when it comes to warnings on potentially harmful medical devices, but the harm will only stop when the use of defective medical devices stops. Boston Scientific, a maker of transvaginal mesh and slings, is confronting the reality that its product can cause serious harm to patients. In June the company announced its products will carry a new warning label. Transvaginal mesh is used to treat common pelvic disorders in women, which you can read about here.

Boston Scientific is facing more than 36,000 product liability cases because of injuries the mesh has caused, including infections and erosion of surrounding tissue, according to the Minneapolis Star Tribune. Transvaginal slings are used as treatment for incontinence and surgical meshes are surgically implanted to strengthen tissue in women suffering from pelvic organ prolapse.

Transvaginal Mesh: Chilling Allegations in State Lawsuits Against Johnson & Johnson

Published on: June 2, 2016 | By Clay Hodges

So maybe you’ve heard the news that Washington and California recently sued Johnson & Johnson for misrepresenting the safety of its transvaginal mesh (or “pelvic mesh”) products. I pulled the Washington lawsuit and read it. It is alarming. If Washington can prove the allegations in the complaint, it will be a damning indictment of Johnson & Johnson and the pelvic mesh industry generally.

The Washington Lawsuit

States can sue companies on behalf of their injured citizens. If the state’s attorney general decides that a “bad act” is harmful to enough citizens, her office can file a lawsuit on behalf of the state and the group of people who were injured. It is an important consumer protection function provided by the states. This is what happened in Washington and California a few days ago. The Washington Attorney General reported that 11,728 transvaginal mesh products were sold (and implanted) in women in the state. The attorneys general in those states filed suit against Johnson & Johnson and made a series of chilling allegations against the company for its marketing of transvaginal mesh.

Let’s look at some of the key allegations in the Washington State lawsuit. When I refer to “Defendants,” I mean Johnson & Johnson, Ethicon, Inc., and their related companies, who made and marketed several types of transvaginal mesh.

Loss of Consortium in Transvaginal Mesh, Artificial Hip, IVC Filter Cases

Published on: May 13, 2016 | By Clay Hodges

Most people have heard of the claim “loss of consortium.” It comes from the root word consort meaning to associate, to spend time, to hang out with. The definition of the legal claim goes like this: loss of consortium is a claim for (money) damages by the spouse or close family member of a person who has been injured or killed as a result of the negligence or wrongful act of another person. It is a derivative claim, which means it derives or flows from the primary injury to the spouse or family member. Essentially, it creates a separate plaintiff (usually a spouse) and “piggybacks” off the injury to the injured person. A loss of consortium claim cannot exist without the recognized injury to the spouse or family member.

The Lost Sex Claim

People sometimes think of loss of consortium as the “loss of sex” claim. And in fact, one important injury under loss of consortium is that the primary injury prevented a loving married couple from enjoying intimacy and sexual intercourse in the same manner they enjoyed before the accident. Let’s face it, when intimacy is lost or diminished based on the negligence of others, people should be compensated. It’s one big reason we have the derivative claim.

But loss of consortium extends beyond married sexual relations. Suppose a married couple were passionate about sailing and took sailing trips most weekends, but the failure of an artificial hip placed a married woman in a wheelchair and made it impossible for her to climb onto the sailboat. In most states a loss of consortium claim could be made that the loss of this treasured activity deeply damaged the quality of life of the husband. Similar claims can be made for couples who actively garden together, play tennis, travel, or even cook.

Transvaginal Mesh Lawsuits: $4.4 Million Jury Verdict, Appeal of $11.1 Million Award

Published on: May 6, 2016 | By Clay Hodges

(Part 6)

Let’s get back to a look at recent developments with transvaginal mesh lawsuits. In two big victories recently, a Georgia jury awarded $4.4 million to a woman injured by transvaginal mesh, and a New Jersey appeals court upheld an $11.11 million dollar jury verdict.

Transvaginal mesh (TVM) is a plastic mesh product that has been implanted in women for many years to support weakened vaginal walls. Many women suffer from pelvic organ prolapse or stress urinary incontinence, and makers of TVM have insisted that TVM could repair these medical problems. Unfortunately, not long after TVM was marketed and sold, women began complaining of serious health problems, including erosion of the vaginal wall, infections, painful sex, and bladder perforation. The lawsuits followed.

Now let’s take a look at a recent jury trial and an appeal decision of an earlier jury verdict.

Transvaginal Mesh Case Yields $13,500,000.00 Jury Verdict

Published on: February 19, 2016 | By Clay Hodges

Carlino et al. v. Ethicon, Inc., et al. (Pa. Comm. Pls. Ct., Philadelphia County)

Product: Gynemesh TVT

Jury Award: $13,500,000.00 ($3,250,000.00 in compensatory damages; $250,000.00 to husband for loss of consortium; $10,000,000.00 in punitive damages)

Date of Jury Verdict: February 10, 2016

This case was brought by Sharon Carlino and her husband, Charles Carlino. The couple sued Ethicon, Inc. and parent company Johnson & Johnson on several claims, the main one being that Ethicon failed to warn Ms. Carlino and her doctors of the transvaginal mesh product’s risks and potential dangers.

Five Things You Should Do If You Were Injured by Transvaginal Mesh

Published on: February 5, 2016 | By Clay Hodges

For thousands of women, transvaginal mesh has caused more problems than it has solved. Women with TVM have reported infections, urinary problems, pain during sexual intercourse, scarring, bladder perforation, recurrence of pelvic organ prolapse or incontinence, and other problems. If you have a transvaginal mesh implant and now suffer unusual pain or other symptoms, you need to take action quickly.

Initial Consultation919-546-8788

★★★★★

I was involved in a case for the faulty hip replacements. Clay Hodges represented me. I can't say enough about how much he has helped me. Clay was able to win multiple settlements on my behalf with most of them being the maximum amount able to be awarded. Matt J.

Clay, thank you sir for making a disheartening experience at least palatable, you and your staff were honest, caring and understanding through the entire process of my wife’s hip replacements, while monetary settlements never make the pain and suffering end, it sometimes is the only way people can fight back to right a wrong. J. V.

We are absolutely pleased with how Clay Hodges handled my husband’s hip replacement claim. He always kept us informed of the progress. And, his work resulted in a settlement which we are extremely pleased. Thank you, Clay! Carol L. & Norm L.