TVM Lawsuit Update (MDL 2187): Judge Denies C.R. Bard’s Request for New Trial
Judge Joseph Goodwin, who presides over the C.R. Bard MDL pending in the Southern District of West Virginia (In re: C.R. Bard, Inc., Pelvic Repair System Products Liability Litigation, MDL 2187), has denied C.R. Bard’s motion for a new trial on the basis that the manufacturer was not deprived of a fair trial in a previous bellwether case.
On January 20th, Judge Goodwin ruled that C.R. Bard was not prejudiced by the exclusion of evidence regarding its compliance with the 510(k) process, and that the Material Safety Data Sheet that accompanied the polypropylene resin material was properly allowed into evidence. Last year, 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.
According to the most recent report by the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation (JPML), there are nearly 10,000 federally filed cases pending against C.R. Bard in MDL 2187. Bloomberg previously reported that during a December 9th hearing Judge Goodwin “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, “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.”
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.