Call Us: 1.800.873.5297

By

Transvaginal Mesh Lawsuit Status Update: Settlement Reached in Second Federal Trial Scheduled to Begin Against C.R. Bard

Bloomberg News reports that the second federal trial in the Multidistrict Litigation against C.R. Bard, In re: C.R. Bard, Inc., Pelvic Repair System Products Liability Litigation (MDL 2187), was scheduled to begin in West Virginia this week involving Ms. Wanda Queen from North Carolina who alleges that her transvaginal mesh device has caused her significant pain and injury, while forcing her to undergo six revision surgeries (Queen v. C.R. Bard Inc., Case No. 11-cv-00012). However, Judge Joseph R. Goodwin, the judge presiding over the case, has been notified that a settlement has been reached against C.R. Bard in relation to the injuries Ms. Queen suffered as a result of the transvaginal mesh device. Terms of the settlement were not disclosed. A Bard spokesperson said that the settlement in this individual case involving Ms. Wanda Queen was not part of a larger resolution of thousands of other C.R. Bard cases pending in the Multidistrict Litigation.

This settlement in the case of Ms. Wanda Queen comes a week after the first federal transvaginal mesh trial took place, where a West Virginia jury entered a verdict in favor of plaintiff Donna Cisson after a 12-day trial (Cisson v. C.R. Bard Inc., Case No. 2:11-cv-00195). In particular, the jury ordered Bard to pay $2 million in damages to plaintiff Donna Cisson after finding that a Bard Avaulta Plus device degraded her body, causing her pain and other physical ailments and requiring her to undergo several revision surgeries.

The results of the first two trials against C.R. Bard do not guarantee a favorable recovery or settlement for other cases currently pending against C.R. Bard or another transvaginal mesh manufacturer.

C.R. Bard faces thousands of other claims from women alleging that their transvaginal mesh device caused serious injuries. In particular, women across the nation have reported a number of serious complications stemming from these transvaginal mesh devices, such as device erosion, organ perforation, intense pain, inability to have sexual intercourse and infection. Many of these women have been required to undergo multiple revision surgeries.

According to the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation (JPML), there are six multidistrict litigations involving different transvaginal mesh device manufacturers where approximately 23,000 lawsuits are currently pending:

  • MDL 2187 – In re: C.R. Bard, Inc., Pelvic Repair System Products Liability Litigation: 4306 cases
  • MDL 2325 – In re: American Medical Systems, Pelvic Repair System Products Liability Litigation: 9263 cases
  • MDL 2326 – In re: Boston Scientific Corp. Pelvic Repair System Products Liability Litigation: 5546 cases
  • MDL 2327 – In re: Ethicon, Inc., Pelvic Repair System Products Liability Litigation: 9039 cases
  • MDL 2387 – In re: Coloplast Corp. Pelvic Support Systems Products Liability Litigation: 865 cases
  • MDL 2440 – In re: Cook Medical, Inc., Pelvic Repair System Products Liability Litigation: 72 cases

If you or a loved one has experienced serious injuries as a result of a transvaginal mesh device, 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.

 

Legal Disclaimer: The choice of a lawyer is an important decision and should not be based solely on advertisements. The cases mentioned do not guarantee and/or predict outcomes in future cases.

000-017   000-080   000-089   000-104   000-105   000-106   070-461   100-101   100-105  , 100-105  , 101   101-400   102-400   1V0-601   1Y0-201   1Z0-051   1Z0-060   1Z0-061   1Z0-144   1z0-434   1Z0-803   1Z0-804   1z0-808   200-101   200-120   200-125  , 200-125  , 200-310   200-355   210-060   210-065   210-260   220-801   220-802   220-901   220-902   2V0-620   2V0-621   2V0-621D   300-070   300-075   300-101   300-115   300-135   3002   300-206   300-208   300-209   300-320   350-001   350-018   350-029   350-030   350-050   350-060   350-080   352-001   400-051   400-101   400-201   500-260   640-692   640-911   640-916   642-732   642-999   700-501   70-177   70-178   70-243   70-246   70-270   70-346   70-347   70-410   70-411   70-412   70-413   70-417   70-461   70-462   70-463   70-480   70-483   70-486   70-487   70-488   70-532   70-533   70-534   70-980   74-678   810-403   9A0-385   9L0-012   9L0-066   ADM-201   AWS-SYSOPS   C_TFIN52_66   c2010-652   c2010-657   CAP   CAS-002   CCA-500   CISM   CISSP   CRISC   EX200   EX300   HP0-S42   ICBB   ICGB   ITILFND   JK0-022   JN0-102   JN0-360   LX0-103   LX0-104   M70-101   MB2-704   MB2-707   MB5-705   MB6-703   N10-006   NS0-157   NSE4   OG0-091   OG0-093   PEGACPBA71V1   PMP   PR000041   SSCP   SY0-401   VCP550  

Legal Disclaimer & Privacy Policy
This web site is designed for general information only. The information presented should not be construed as legal advice and does not form the basis for an attorney/client relationship.

The choice of a lawyer is an important decision and should not be based solely on advertisements.
This web site is not intended to be advertising, and Schlichter Bogard & Denton LLP does not desire to represent anyone desiring representation based upon viewing this web site in a jurisdiction where this web site fails to comply with all laws and ethical rules of that jurisdiction. Materials on this web site may only be reproduced in their entirety (without modification) for the individual reader's personal and/or educational use and must include this notice.

We will not disclose, sell, or rent any of your identifiable personal information to any third party, unless approved by you, or required by law.