Barring any sudden changes, it would appear that the vaginal mesh legal proceedings as far as the multidistrict litigations (MDL) in West Virginia are concerned will go full blast by next year. Bellwether cases have been slated for trial against four large mesh manufacturers for the next seven months for the year 2014. 
 
Scheduled Vaginal Mesh Trials in 2013 
 
Scheduled for trials in 2013 were the bellwether cases filed against C.R. Bard. The first bellwether trial involved the vaginal mesh lawsuit filed by Donna Cisson and her husband and which was resolved by a jury in mid-August with a decision finding C.R. Bard as responsible for the injuries suffered by the claimant. A total of $2 million in damages was awarded to the plaintiffs, which represented compensatory damages of $250,000 and punitive damages of $1.75 million. 
 
The second case involving the claim of Wanda Queen was settled out of court before it can even start hearing. With a request from Linda Rizzo, the complainant, for a dismissal of her vaginal mesh lawsuit, the third bellwether trial which was supposed to start on October 8, 2013 was cancelled. Originally scheduled for a December trial, the hearing of Carolyn Jones’ vaginal mesh lawsuit was postponed and rescheduled to another date. 
 
Bellwether Trials for 2014 
 
Trials of bellwether cases for at least four major mesh manufacturers have been scheduled by Judge Joseph Goodwin of the US District Court for the Southern District of West Virginia for the year 2014. Named defendants in these trials are Ethicon Inc., American Medical Systems (AMS), Boston Scientific, and C.R. Bard. Bellwether trials for Cook Medical and Coloplast, the other two defendants in the West Virginia MDL, may likely be agreed before the year 2014 ends. 
 
The claim of Carolyn Jones against C.R. Bard, set on January 10, 2014, will be the first bellwether trial for the year 2014. The lawsuit of Lewis against Ethicon with the date tentatively slated for February 10, 2014 and that of Fawcett versus Boston Scientific on March 10, 2014 will comprise the bellwether trials for the first quarter of the year. 
 
Bellwether trials have also been lined up for three defendants for the next four months. American Medical Systems (AMS) has been named defendant in bellwether trials scheduled for April 7, 2014 and May 5, 2014. The plaintiffs for these trials have yet to be determined by the court before the year ends. 
 
After the trials of claims against AMS, the vaginal mesh lawsuit of Huskey against Ethicon will then be heard on June 23, 2014. On July 14, 2014, the second bellwether case involving Boston Scientific will follow, with the name of the plaintiff still to be determined. 
 
Possible Out-of-Court Settlement 
 
It might not come as a surprise that changes may take place especially if the reported settlement talks between five defendants and thousands of plaintiffs are finally consummated. The cancellation of a scheduled trial is another scenario if settlement is arrived at before the start of the trial. Examples of this would be the two cases against C.R. Bard in West Virginia and New Jersey. 
 
Even if settlement negotiations fail, lawyers for the plaintiffs are optimistic that their clients will eventually prevail. This should provide the needed encouragement to the thousands of injured women who have filed vaginal mesh lawsuits against the erring mesh manufacturers. 
 
References:

• meshmedicaldevicenewsdesk.com/latest-in-the-litigation-concerning-mesh-and-medical-device
  
• wvsd.uscourts.gov
  

The thousands of women who have filed vaginal mesh lawsuits against American Medical System (AMS) may breathe a sigh of relief after a long wait. Finally, bellwether cases in the multidistrict litigation (MDL) involving AMS have been scheduled by Judge Joseph Goodwin, the presiding judge of the US District Court for the Southern District of West Virginia.
 
The first of four bellwether cases against AMS has been set for April 7, 2014. Barring any postponements or any developments such as out-of-court settlements, the other bellwether cases will go on trial on May 5, 2014 and August 19, 2014.
 
With 12,944 cases as of December 16, 2013, AMS faces the most number of pending vaginal mesh lawsuits in the West Virginia MDL. For sure, the decisions of these bellwether cases will be eagerly awaited by these claimants.
 
Should the decisions of these cases be favorable to the plaintiffs, legal experts believe that chances are very high that AMS may decide to settle out of court the thousands of vaginal mesh claims. It may be recalled that AMS, through Endo Solutions, has shown willingness to settle claims by allocating $54.5 million for the purpose of settling selected vaginal mesh lawsuits.  
 
Read More: First American Medical Systems Vaginal Mesh Trial Scheduled for 2014

After encountering some difficulties during the course of the vaginal mesh trial against Mentor Worldwide LCC in Georgia, a decision favorable to the plaintiff was eventually handed down.
 
The plaintiff in this vaginal mesh lawsuit was implanted with a Mentor OB Tape on December 29, 2004 for the treatment of her stress urinary incontinence (SUI). In just a short period of time, the plaintiff started experiencing severe complications resulting to serious injuries.
 
Originally filed in a federal court in Minnesota, the plaintiff’s complaint was transferred to the US District Court for the Middle District of Georgia where it was included in the consolidation of lawsuits under a multidistrict litigation (MDL).
 
In his petition, the counsel for the plaintiff requested the court for a retrial due to the comments made by the lawyer of the defendant during his closing statements.
 
Presiding Judge Clay D. Land declared in his ruling that the defense did not improperly argue when counsel said that the lack of action by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) prior to the sling procedure should be considered by the jury in determining whether Mentor was negligent.
 
Read More: Judge Will Not Re-Try Mentor Ob Tape Vaginal Mesh Case

Three years after being implanted with a Prolift vaginal mesh for the repair of her pelvic organ prolapse, Linda Gross started to experience severe complications which has brought her endless pain and suffering, according to her own account.
 
She had to undergo several surgical procedures, make endless visits to different medical specialists, take in an assortment of medications, endure a lot of pain and discomfort, sacrifice relationships, and give up a job that she truly loved.
 
While some of these effects may not be expressed in financial values, still the injuries she sustained had greatly impacted on her economically.
 
In his testimony during the trial of Linda Gross against Ethicon, the makers of Prolift vaginal mesh, financial expert Frank Tinari placed the economic loss of Linda Gross at around $3 million.
 
Taken into consideration by the witness in coming up with the amount were the plaintiff’s past and future earnings and life care costs which includes multiple medications, extensive consultations with various medical specialists, and home care assistance.
 
Read More: Prolift Mesh Victim Owed $3 Million, Experts Testify

Before its introduction in 2005, there were already several studies conducted on the Prolift vaginal mesh which showed results indicating very high complications rates, court record reveals, showing evidences presented during the trial of Linda Gross against Ethicon. The company’s own research group also presented recommendations that appeared to agree with these findings. 
 
It was revealed that complication rate was 33.6 percent after only six months of surgical procedure using the Gynecare vaginal mesh, according to one study involving 684 patients from different medical centers in France. A total of 80 cases of mesh retractions were reported while another 77 patients experienced mesh exposition. There was also a recurrence of organ prolapse in 36 patients and at least 37 respondents had developed stress urinary incontinence (SUI) after the procedure. 
 
Researchers at that time were very concerned about these developments. They were fully aware of the impact of these complications on the women who may be implanted with the vaginal mesh device. That the use of the Prolift may lead to erosion and retraction which may result to anatomical distortion of the vaginal cavity that may interfere with sexual intercourse was one concern raised by a French doctor who was in charge of the team responsible for the development of the Gynecare Prolift. 
 
The possibility of mesh shrinkage or contraction due to the materials used was another concern raised by members of the research team. According to these experts, once scar tissues are formed due to the material’s porosity, mesh shrinkage may occur which may lead to complications causing severe pelvic pain, infections, and extreme pain during sexual intercourse. 
 
In 2005, Ethicon decided to launch the Gynecare Prolift without heeding the recommendations of the different experts. In the process, information pertaining to the product’s safety and efficacy were allegedly omitted in the official reports and in the product’s labels and other literature. 
 
The Gynecare Prolift vaginal mesh enjoyed huge success when it was made available to the market in 2005. Complaints of severe complications attributed to the use of these products starting to emerge after only a few years, cutting short its successful run. 
 
In 2006, this supposedly innovative device was implanted on Linda Gross which she claimed caused her pain and suffering, which resulted to the filing of a vaginal mesh lawsuit against Ethicon. After a month of continuous trial, Johnson & Johnson, through its subsidiary, was found guilty of the charges brought up by Linda Gross and was ordered by the jury to pay damages amounting to $11 million. 
 
References:
ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18937698
meshmedicaldevicenewsdesk.com