Judge Says Transvaginal Mesh Manufacturer C.R. Bard Faces Billions in Verdicts, Bloomberg Reports
Bloomberg reports that Judge Joseph Goodwin, the federal judge overseeing the C.R. Bard Multidistrict Litigation (MDL 2187) in West Virginia, “took the unusual step of urging C.R. Bard to settle thousands of lawsuits over defective vaginal-mesh implants because juries may award billions of dollars in damages.”
Judge Goodwin said during a December 9th hearing, “I can’t imagine a corporation facing potentially billions of dollars in verdicts wouldn’t find it advisable to try to achieve a settlement for a much lesser sum. I base that billions of dollars business on some of the rather large verdicts that we’ve had.” According to the most recent report by the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation, there are nearly 10,000 cases pending against C.R. Bard in MDL 2187 (In re: C.R. Bard, Inc., Pelvic Repair System Products Liability Litigation).
In August, a jury in a federal court in West Virginia ordered C.R. Bard to pay a woman $2 million in damages for injuries and damages she suffered from the company’s transvaginal mesh device. In September, jurors in a Texas state court in Dallas found Boston Scientific liable and ordered the company to pay $73 Million in damages to a woman who was seriously injured by the company’s mesh implant. That same month, a jury in West Virginia ordered Johnson & Johnson to pay $3.27 million in damages to a woman who suffered injuries from one of the company’s implants. And just last month, juries in federal court in Florida and West Virginia ordered Boston Scientific to pay a total of $45.2 million in damages to a total of eight women who suffered injuries from the company’s transvaginal mesh devices.
If you or a loved one has experienced serious injuries as a result of a transvaginal mesh device, please contact one of our experienced attorneys at Schlichter, Bogard & Denton, LLP toll-free at 1-800-873-5297. We will confidentially evaluate your case for free and without any obligation.
The choice of a lawyer is an important decision and should not be based solely on advertisements. The cases discussed do not predict outcomes in future cases. Past results afford no guarantee of future results and every case is different and must be judged on its own merits.