Call Us: 1.800.873.5297

By

Transvaginal Mesh® Lawsuit Update: Defense Verdict in Favor of Boston Scientific in First Massachusetts State Court Trial

On July 29, 2014, a Massachusetts state court jury returned a verdict in favor of Boston Scientific over allegations that the company sold dangerous and defective transvaginal mesh (TVM) devices (Albright v. Boston Scientific Corp., Case No. 12-909, Middlesex County Superior Court, Massachusetts).

Following nearly a three-week trial, Plaintiff Diane Albright’s design defect and failure to warn claims went to a jury on July 28, 2014. Before a verdict could be rendered, it was required that eleven of the thirteen jurors agree when answering the jury questions and that threshold was met. The majority of the jurors decided that the plaintiff received adequate informed consent regarding the risks associated with the transvaginal mesh device.

Boston Scientific is facing more than 20,000 claims over the transvaginal mesh implants. Nearly 2,200 of those claims have been consolidated before The Honorable Judge Joseph R. Goodwin in the United States District Court for the Southern District of West Virginia. The first federal trial is scheduled for November 3, 2014. There are nearly 1,700 claims in front of Judge Diane Kottmyer, the judge that oversaw the Albright case, in Massachusetts state court. The next Massachusetts state court trial is set for August 11, 2014.

Thousands of women allege that they have experienced complications from these transvaginal mesh devices, including device erosion, organ perforation, intense pain, inability to have sexual intercourse, infection, and the need to undergo multiple revision surgeries. After the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) issued a Safety Communication warning that serious complications associated with surgical mesh products were “not rare,” lawsuits across the nation started to accumulate against the various TVM manufacturers—and the number of cases continues to grow. According to the most recent report released by the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation (JPML), there are seven Multidistrict Litigations (MDLs) involving different transvaginal mesh device manufacturers currently pending:

  • MDL 2327 – In re: Ethicon, Inc. Pelvic Repair System Products Liability Litigation:18,501 cases
  • MDL 2187 – In re: C.R. Bard, Inc. Pelvic Repair System Products Liability Litigation: 8,667 cases
  • MDL 2325 – In re: American Medical Systems Pelvic Repair System Products Liability Litigation: 17,901 cases
  • MDL 2326 – In re: Boston Scientific Corp. Pelvic Repair System Products Liability Litigation: 12,199  cases
  • MDL 2387 – In re: Coloplast Corp. Pelvic Support Systems Products Liability Litigation: 1,506 cases
  • MDL 2440 – In re: Cook Medical, Inc. Pelvic Repair System Products Liability Litigation: 213 cases
  • MDL 2511 – In re: Neomedic Pelvic Repair System Products Liability Litigation: 74 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.

 

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.

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.