Transvaginal Mesh (MDL 2326) Update: Cases Against Boston Scientific Move Forward After First Two Bellwether Trials
Cases against Boston Scientific continue to move forward in the Multidistrict Litigation (In re: Boston Scientific Corp. Pelvic Repair System Products Liability Litigation, MDL 2326) before The Honorable Judge Joseph R. Goodwin in the United States District Court for the Southern District of West Virginia. According to the Court’s most recent Pretrial Order, new deadlines have been established pertaining to discovery in Wave 1 and 2 bellwether cases. In particular, the Court has ordered for all pretrial motions and briefing to be completed by February 6, 2015.
The first two federal bellwether trials in MDL 2326 involving Boston Scientific have recently concluded. The first federal trial, which lasted eight days, involved four women who alleged suffering injuries due to Boston Scientific’s Pinnacle Pelvic Floor Repair Kit and were awarded a total of $26.7 million in compensatory damages. (Enhnayem, et al. v. Boston Scientific Corp., Case No. 2:13-7965) The second federal trial involved another four women who alleged suffering injuries involving Boston Scientific’s Obtryx Bladder Sling, and were awarded a total of $18 million in compensatory and punitive damages. (Tyree v. Boston Scientific Corp., Case No. 12-cv-8633)
Over 14,000 cases against Boston Scientific are pending in MDL 2326. Thousands of women allege that they have experienced complications from these TVM devices, including device erosion, organ perforation, intense pain, inability to have sexual intercourse, infection, and the need to undergo multiple revision surgeries.
The attorneys at Schlichter, Bogard & Denton are currently representing a multitude of women who allege to have suffered injuries as a result of TVM devices. If you or a loved one have suffered serious injuries associated with transvaginal mesh products, please contact the attorneys at Schlichter, Bogard & Denton, LLP toll-free at 1-800-873-5297 for your confidential and free consultation.
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.