Class Action Article

  • File A Talcum Powder Lawsuit: Talcum Powder Ovarian Cancer Lawsuits Talcum Powder Fallopian Tube Cancer Lawsuits Baby  Powder Ovarian Cancer Lawsuits Filed If you or a loved one used talcum powder products and were diagnosed with ovarian cancer, or fallopian tube can...

Class Action News

Drug Class Actions

  • Taxotere Lawyers for Permanent Hair Loss: Taxotere Baldness Lawyers For  Permanent Hair Loss Lawsuits Have you received Taxotere for breast cancer? Taxotere can result in hair loss or baldness  that is permanent. Taxotere  is a chemotherapy drug used for the treatment of breas...

Medical Device Lawsuits

  • Zimmer Hip Replacement Lawyers: Network Zimmer Hip Replacement  Lawyer Win $2 Million Against Zimmer Hip Replacement Do You Have A Faulty Zimmer M/L Taper Hip Prothesis With Connective Technology and Cobalt Chromium Head? Do You Have Have Metallosis or Chromium Cobalt T...

Was There Sufficient Warning For Boston Transvaginal Mesh Victims?

Written by lisaspitzer on . Posted in Medical Device Lawsuits, Transvaginal mesh

Did The Manufacturers Of The Transvaginal Mesh And Bladder Sling Give Sufficient Warning?

Boston Vaginal Mesh Lawyers say no in the thousands of transvaginal mesh and bladder sling claims that have been filed in the Pelvic Mesh Repair Lawsuits MDL'Ls.

According to transvaginal mesh lawyers accross the country who are filing vaginal mesh and bladder sling lawsuits the warning was insufficient. For a warning to be sufficient, a transvaginal mesh warning  should appropriately signal danger while simultaneously providing the information in order to use the product appropriately.  A  pharmaceutical or medical device  manufacturer doesn’t necessarily have to discuss matters that are basic medical knowledge.  They are not in a position to control the individual practices  of doctors in every single medical community. 

 Will The Device  Warnings The Transvaginal meshmanufacturers provided  to the doctor relieve them of their duty to warn the patient.

What are some ways that warnings can become inadequate?  Some variables that courts will consider include:  If they are overly broad or too generic, contradictory statements made in the inserts, actions by the sales representatives, and presenting the warning in a way that makes it unlikely to be read.  Remember, every case is different.  In some cases, a doctor might not even bother to read the warnings.  In other cases, the possibility of an adverse reaction is too small to even impact the doctor’s decision.  There have even been cases where a doctor has stated that even if he were given new information, he would have still followed through with his initial decision.

What other possible legal theories being explored?  If a company supplies product related information to the public that amounts to an express warranty, they can be held liable for breach of warranty if the plaintiff can successfully prove that the information was false.

We will be watching the pelvic mesh repair proceedings and waiting to see how they play out.

To file a Transvagina, mesh lawsuit for a Prolene mesh surgicall implanted in: D.C., Daytona, Fort Myers, Ft Lauderdale,  Gainesville,  Jacksonville,  Keys,  Lakeland, Miami, Ocala, Orlando, Panama City, Pensacola, Sarasota, St. Augustine,  Boston, Springfield,  Worcester, Ann Arbor, Detroit,  Grand Rapids, Jackson, Lansing, Minneapolis,  St Paul, Charlotte. Fayetteville,  Greensboro,  Raleigh, Wilmington, Winston Salem, Fargo, Providence,  Charleston, Columbia,  Florence, Greenville, Seattle, Tacoma, Charleston,  Wisconsin, Milwaukee,  Cheyenne,  Casper,  Laramie,  Gillette, Milwaukee, Montana, Billings, Springfield, Detroit, Grand Rapids, Omaha ,Manchester, Albuquerque, Charlotte, Raleigh, Greensboro, Winston-Salem, Durham,  Fayetteville,  Wilmington, Providence, Charleston  Seattle, Milwaukee, Madison,  Green Bay, Casper or Laramie call Class Action Lawyer Network transvaginal mesh attorneys today.

Lawyers For Yaz, Fosamax, NuvaRing, Pradaxa, Mesh, SSRI’s, Actos,Tylenol, DePuy, Stryker

Written by lisaspitzer on . Posted in ABG Modular Stem lawyers, Alabama Multidistrict Litigation Lawyers, APG II Recall Lawyers, Arizona Multidistrict Litigation Lawyers, Arkansas Multidistrict Litigation Lawyers, California Multidistrict Litigation Lawyers, Colorado Multidistrict Litigation Lawyers, Connecticut Multidistrict Litigation Lawyers, Delaware Multidistrict Litigation Lawyers, DePuy Pinnacle Hip Replacement Updates, Florida Multidistrict Litigation Lawyers, Georgia Multidistrict Litigation Lawyers, GranuFlo Dialysis Medication Lawyers, Idaho Multidistrict Litigation Lawyers, Illinois Multidistrict Litigation Lawyers, Indiana Multidistrict Litigation Lawyers, Iowa Multidistrict Litigation Lawyers, Kansas Multidistrict Litigation Lawyers, Kentucky Multidistrict Litigation Lawyers, Louisiana Multidistrict Litigation Lawyers, Maine Multidistrict Litigation Lawyers, Maryland Multidistrict Litigation Lawyers, Massachusetts Multidistrict Litigation Lawyers, Michigan Multidistrict Litigation Lawyers, Minnesota Multidistrict Litigation Lawyers, Mississippi Multidistrict Litigation Lawyers, Missouri Multidistrict Litigation Lawyers, Montana Multidistrict Litigation Lawyers, Nebraska Multidistrict Litigation Lawyers, Nevada Multidistrict Litigation Lawyers, New Hampshire Multidistrict Litigation Lawyers, New Jersey Multidistrict Litigation Lawyers, New Mexico Multidistrict Litigation Lawyers, North Carolina Multidistrict Litigation Lawyers, Ohio Multidistrict Litigation Lawyers, Oklahoma Multidistrict Litigation Lawyers, Oregon Multidistrict Litigation Lawyers, Pennsylvania Multidistrict Litigation Lawyers, revuvinate recall lawyers, Rhode Island Multidistrict Litigation Lawyers, South Carolina Multidistrict Litigation Lawyers, South Dakota Multidistrict Litigation Lawyers, Stryker Hip replacement recall lawyer, Texas Multidistrict Litigation Lawyers, Toxic Substances, Transvaginal mesh, Tylenol Liver Damage Lawyers, Utah Multidistrict Litigation Lawyers, Vermont Multidistrict Litigation Lawyers, Washington DC Multidistrict Litigation Lawyers, Washington Multidistrict Litigation Lawyers, West Virginia Multidistrict Litigation Lawyers

We continue to accept nationwide vaginal mesh and bladder sling cases, Actos lawsuits, NuvaRing lawsuits, Dialysis medication lawsuits, Pradaxa lawsuits, Hip Replacement lawsuits, SSRI birth defect lawsuits, Tylenol lawsuits, Yaz lawsuits and others.

Vaginal Mesh

Nationwide vaginal mesh and bladder sling cases

Actos Lawyers

Patients have been diagnosed with bladder cancer after consuming the diabetes drug Actos.

Chemical Toxins Leach V Dupont Class Action Lawyers

Patients diagnosed with kidney cancer, testicular cancer, ulcerative colitis and/or thyroid disease who are members of the Leach v. Dupont class.  Leach class definition: a person who drank contaminated water for at least one year prior to December 3, 2004 from one of six named water districts, or specified private drinking water wells contaminated with C-8.  The affected water districts are:

Patients diagnosed with kidney cancer, testicular cancer, ulcerative colitis and/or thyroid disease who are members of the Leach v. Dupont class.  Leach class definition: a person who drank contaminated water for at least one year prior to December 3, 2004 from one of six named water districts, or specified private drinking water wells contaminated with C-8.  The affected water districts are (1) Little Hocking, Ohion (2) Lubeck Public Service District, West Virginia (3) City of Belpre, Ohio (4)  Tuppers Plains, Ohio (5) Mason County Public Service District, West Virginia (6) Village of Pomeroy, Ohio.

Chemical exposure lawyer Little Hocking,

Chemical exposure lawyer Lubeck Public Service District,

Chemical exposure lawyer Belpre,

Chemical exposure lawyer Tuppers Plains,

Chemical exposure lawyer Mason County Public Service District,

Chemical exposure lawyer West Virginia ,

Chemical exposure lawyer Village of Pomeroy

It does not matter where class member now reside, so long as they lived in one of the contaminated areas and drank the water at least one year effective December 3, 2004.

DePuy Hip Pinnacle and ASR Hip Implant Recall Lawyers

Faulty Metal-on-Metal Hip Implants.

Fosamax Lawyers

We are actively pursuing new Fosamax femur fracture cases.  Our intake criteria for these cases is as follows: (1) proof of at least 4 years of Fosamax use or other oral bisphosphonates; (2) fracture of the subtrochanteric or shaft area of the femur; (3) no or minimal trauma associated with the fracture; (4) 80 years old or younger at time of fracture.

Granuflo, Naturalyte Dialysis Mediction Lawyers

We are litigating cases aagainst Fresenius, the German manufacturer and distributor of GranuFlo and NaturaLyte dialysate products. These products are supposed to safely filter and cleanse the bloodGranuFlo/NaturaLyte has been directly linked to unsafe levels of bicarbonate in dialysis patients.

Nuvaring Lawyers

Accepting cases preferably for injuries arising after 2011.  Organon/Merck’s vaginal ring contraceptive drug/device are being actively litigated in both state and federal venues, and have been since late 2007. Plaintiffs allege that NuvaRing increases a woman’s risk of blood clots, heart attack, and stroke above and beyond the risk that is mentioned in the label.

Pradaxa Excessive Bleeding Lawyers

Pradaxa is an anticoagulant drug indicated for patients who have been diagnosed with atrial fibrillation. Pradaxa was heralded as a treatment advance because it is easier to take than its competitor, it also can cause uncontrollable bleeding which cannot be stopped by any antidote.  Accordingly, there have been bleeding events which have lasted for days.  Some clients have been told that there is simply nothing medical science can do to stop the bleeding.  People have died

Lexapro/Celexa, Zoloft, Prozac, Effexor, Wellbutrin and Pax Lawyers

SSRI antidepressant manu­facturers, including Glaxo-SmithKline, Eli Lilly, Pfizer, and Forest Laboratories, alleging a variety of birth defects from prenatal exposure to these drugs. The products involved include Lexapro/Celexa, Zoloft, Prozac, Effexor, Wellbutrin and Paxil.

Stryker Hip Replacement Lawyers

Litigation against Stryker.  “Rejuvenate” and “ABGII” stem implants were recalled in the summer of 2012, and the failure of these femoral stems has caused enormous damage for those patients as a result of “fretting” in the modular neck- stem junction, leading to corrosion and exposure to large amounts of metallic debris.

Tylenol Lawyers For Liver Damage

Branded Tylenol acetaminophen toxicity causing acute liver failure requiring hospitalization.

Yaz Lawyers

*Only for injuries that occurred before 4/10/2012 as well as from states with 3+ year SOLs and Discovery rules. Cardiovascular injuries caused by Drospirenone (DRSP), the active progestin component in these oral contraceptive pills.  Deep Vein Thrombosis, Pulmonary Embolism, Blood Clots and certain types of Stroke.

Vaginal Mesh Lawyers Updated Vaginal Mesh Lawsuit Information

Written by lisaspitzer on . Posted in Alabama Multidistrict Litigation Lawyers, Delaware Multidistrict Litigation Lawyers, Florida Multidistrict Litigation Lawyers, Georgia Multidistrict Litigation Lawyers, Idaho Multidistrict Litigation Lawyers, Maine Multidistrict Litigation Lawyers, Maryland Multidistrict Litigation Lawyers, Massachusetts Multidistrict Litigation Lawyers, Medical Device Lawsuits, Michigan Multidistrict Litigation Lawyers, Minnesota Multidistrict Litigation Lawyers, Mississippi Multidistrict Litigation Lawyers, Missouri Multidistrict Litigation Lawyers, Montana Multidistrict Litigation Lawyers, Nevada Multidistrict Litigation Lawyers, New Mexico Multidistrict Litigation Lawyers, North Carolina Multidistrict Litigation Lawyers, North Dakota Multidistrict Litigation Lawyers, Ohio Multidistrict Litigation Lawyers, Pennsylvania Multidistrict Litigation Lawyers, Rhode Island Multidistrict Litigation Lawyers, South Dakota Multidistrict Litigation Lawyers, Transvaginal mesh, Utah Multidistrict Litigation Lawyers, Washington DC Multidistrict Litigation Lawyers, Washington Multidistrict Litigation Lawyers, West Virginia Multidistrict Litigation Lawyers, Wisconsin Multidistrict Litigation Lawyers, Wyoming Multidistrict Litigation Lawyers

Class Action Lawyer Network, vaginal mesh lawyers are  accepting all TVT, Vaginal Mesh and Bladder Sling lawsuits at this time. Although many states have reached the 2 year statute of limitation cut off dates, our vaginal mesh lawyers are still accepting these lawsuits on a case by case basis.

The following is a list of vaginal mesh lawsuit states that do not have a 2 year statute of limitations. Kentucky, Louisiana and Tennessee have a one year statute of limitations.

Vaginal Mesh Lawsuits  Statute Of Limitations

ARK = 3 Yrs. (Non-discovery)
DC = 3 Yrs.
FL = 4 Yrs.
Maine = 6 Yrs. (Non-discovery)
Mass = 3 Yrs.
MI = 3 Yrs.
Minn = 4 Yrs.
Mont = 3 Yrs.
NH = 3 Yrs.
NM = 3 Yrs.
NY = 3 Yrs. (Non-discovery)
NC = 6 Yrs.
RI = 3 Yrs.
SC = 3 Yrs.
WA = 3 Yrs.
WI = 3 Yrs
WY = 4 Yrs.
 
Non-discovery means SOL starts to run from DATE OF IMPLANT.
 
Most vaginal mesh lawsuits are being filed in the consolidated MDL'S in West Virginia.
Vaginal Mesh Multi District Lawsuit List Consolidated Under Judge Goodwin in West Virginia

    MDL – 2325, IN RE: American Medical Systems, Inc., Pelvic Repair System Products Liability Litigation
    MDL No. 2187 | In RE: CR Bard, Inc., Pelvic Repair System Products Liability Litigation
    MDL – 2326 IN RE: Boston Scientific Corp. Pelvic Repair System Products Liability Litigation
    MDL – 2327 IN RE: Ethicon, Inc., Pelvic Repair System Products Liability Litigation
    MDL – 2387 IN RE: Coloplast Corp. Pelvic Support Systems Products Liability Litigation
    Cook Medical Surgical will be the 5th MDL
Vaginal mesh lawsuits are being accepted for all of the manufacturers listed above. Boston Scientific and AMS vaginal mesh cases have a unique advantage. If you have had your vaginal mesh implanted in a 2 year statute state and it is a Boston Scientific or AMS product the lawsuit can be moved to the state's of the mnaiufacturers. This is Minnesota and Massachusetts. These states have not reached the statute filing date as of yet.

Contact our vaginal mesh lawyers for more information on filing you vaginal mesh lawsuits for class action lawsuit against mesh.

 

Current Important Class Action, Dangerous Drugs and Devices Multi District Litigations In the News

Written by lisaspitzer on . Posted in ABG II Lawyers, ABG Modular Stem lawyers, Alabama Multidistrict Litigation Lawyers, Alaska Multidistrict Litigation Lawyers, APG II Recall Lawyers, Colorado Multidistrict Litigation Lawyers, Delaware Multidistrict Litigation Lawyers, GranuFlo Dialysis Medication Lawyers, Hawaii Multidistrict Litigation Lawyers, Idaho Multidistrict Litigation Lawyers, Illinois Multidistrict Litigation Lawyers, Infuse Bone Graft Lawywrs, Iowa Multidistrict Litigation Lawyers, Kansas Multidistrict Litigation Lawyers, Maine Multidistrict Litigation Lawyers, Maryland Multidistrict Litigation Lawyers, Massachusetts Multidistrict Litigation Lawyers, Michigan Multidistrict Litigation Lawyers, Minnesota Multidistrict Litigation Lawyers, Mississippi Multidistrict Litigation Lawyers, Missouri Multidistrict Litigation Lawyers, Montana Multidistrict Litigation Lawyers, Nebraska Multidistrict Litigation Lawyers, Nevada Multidistrict Litigation Lawyers, New Hampshire Multidistrict Litigation Lawyers, New Jersey Multidistrict Litigation Lawyers, New Mexico Multidistrict Litigation Lawyers, North Carolina Multidistrict Litigation Lawyers, Ohio Multidistrict Litigation Lawyers, Oklahoma Multidistrict Litigation Lawyers, Oregon Multidistrict Litigation Lawyers, Pennsylvania Multidistrict Litigation Lawyers, Product Recall News, Rhode Island Multidistrict Litigation Lawyers, South Carolina Multidistrict Litigation Lawyers, South Dakota Multidistrict Litigation Lawyers, Stryker Hip replacement recall lawyer, Stryker Rejuvinate Hip replacement recall lawyers, Texas Multidistrict Litigation Lawyers, Transvaginal mesh, Utah Multidistrict Litigation Lawyers, Vermont Multidistrict Litigation Lawyers, Virginia Multidistrict Litigation Lawyers, Washington DC Multidistrict Litigation Lawyers, Washington Multidistrict Litigation Lawyers, West Virginia Multidistrict Litigation Lawyers, Wisconsin Multidistrict Litigation Lawyers, Wyoming Multidistrict Litigation Lawyers

The following dangrous drugs and devices are appearing in lawyer ads and email blasts across the country.: Vaginal Mesh, Transvaginal Mesh, Pelvic mesh, Surgical mesh,  Bladder sling, Stryker Rejuvinate hip replacement, Stryker ABG Modular II Stems, Yaz, and Mesothelioma. The following dangrous drugs and devices are appearing in lawyer ads and email blasts across the country.:

Vaginal Mesh Lawsuits

Women nationwide in the thousands are filing vaginal mesh lawsuits for severe mesh complications. The vaginal mesh lawsuits have been consolidated and the bellwether trials are moving ahead.

Vaginal Mesh Multi District Lawsuit List Consolidated Under Judge Goodwin in West Virginia

    MDL – 2325, IN RE: American Medical Systems, Inc., Pelvic Repair System Products Liability Litigation
    MDL – 2326 IN RE: Boston Scientific Corp. Pelvic Repair System Products Liability Litigation
    MDL – 2327 IN RE: Ethicon, Inc., Pelvic Repair System Products Liability Litigation
    MDL – 2387 IN RE: Coloplast Corp. Pelvic Support Systems Products Liability Litigation

TransVaginal Mesh Lawsuits

These are still the same Prolene mesh which is causing severe complication, just unsder another name

Pelvic Mesh Lawsuits

Still the same Prolene mesh and vaginal mesh lawyers, transvaginal mesh lawyers, and pelvic mesh lawyers are filing vaginal mesh lawsuits for all of these

Surgical Mesh Lawsuit, Bladder Sling Lawsuits

Still the same vaginal mesh lawsuit products

Stryker Rejuvinate and ABG Modular II Stems Hip Replacement

Class action Stryker lawsuit lawyers are filing lawsuit for the failed Stryker hip replacement where revision surgery is needed. We suggest you see an orthpedic doctor immediately.

The U.S. Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation is considering  forming an MDL to handle the growing number of Stryker lawsuits. Both the Rejuvenate and the ABG II hip implants were recalled in July 2012. This was done due to  reports that  the implants were  causing  complications including loosening of the joint, corrosion, and increased risk of inflammation as well as metal toxicity.  Many  victims of these  failed devices have had to undergo revision surgery to remove and replace them long before they reached the end of their expected 15-20 year lifespan. On March 18, 2013, Stryker filed a brief with the JPML, agreeing that coordination of lawsuits involving the recalled devices was appropriate.

Yaz Lawsuit

Yaz class action lawyers  are accepting Yaz cases for blood clots, stroke, pulmonary embolism and untimely death of young women.

As of February 12, 2013, Bayer had reached agreements, without admission of liability, to settle the claims of approximately 4,800 Yaz victims  in the U.S. for a total amount of about US$1 billion," according to the annual report.

Bayer also said that it, "is only settling claims in the U.S. for venous clot injuries (deep vein thrombosis or pulmonary embolism) after a case-specific analysis of medical records on a rolling basis. Such injuries are alleged by about 3,200 of the pending unsettled claimants. Bayer will continue to consider the option of settling individual lawsuits in the U.S. on a case-by-case basis.

 

Mesothelioma Lawsuit

1000's of hard working citizens are starting to show signs of mesothelioma from asbestos exposure on the job. Class action lawyers for Mesothwlioma victims and their families are here to help you.

 

 

 

Covedian Vaginal Mesh Lawsuits, Covedian Vaginal Mesh Lawyers

Written by lisaspitzer on . Posted in Medical Device Lawsuits, Transvaginal mesh

Covidien vaginal Mesh Implants

The Covedian Vaginal mesh are called pelvic floor repair kits. The Covedian vaginal mesh are called:

 

  •         IVS Tunneler Intra-Vaginal Sling
  •         IVS Tunneler Placement Device
  •         Parietene Polypropylene Mesh
  •         Surgipro Polyproylene Surgical Mesh

Covedian vaginal mesh lawyers are filing lawsuit for victims of the Covedian Vaginal Mesh.

The Covedian lawsuits are for complications which are the same for all vaginal mesh:

  •     Painful revision surgeries that do not help
  •     Bleeding
  •     Back pain and digestive problems
  •     Depression
  •     Infections
  •     Incontinence and prolapse are back
  •     mesh erosion causing inability to have sexual intercourse
  •     mesh removal required

 Covidien Vaginal Sling  lawyers are filing lawsuits for justice for mesh victims

Get a Covedian vaginal mesh lawyer today.

Bard Vaginal Mesh Lawsuit Trials to Begin, Bard Vaginal Mesh lawyers

Written by lisaspitzer on . Posted in Arizona Multidistrict Litigation Lawyers, California Multidistrict Litigation Lawyers, Connecticut Multidistrict Litigation Lawyers, Delaware Multidistrict Litigation Lawyers, Florida Multidistrict Litigation Lawyers, Georgia Multidistrict Litigation Lawyers, Idaho Multidistrict Litigation Lawyers, Illinois Multidistrict Litigation Lawyers, Indiana Multidistrict Litigation Lawyers, Kansas Multidistrict Litigation Lawyers, Maine Multidistrict Litigation Lawyers, Maryland Multidistrict Litigation Lawyers, Massachusetts Multidistrict Litigation Lawyers, Medical Device Lawsuits, Michigan Multidistrict Litigation Lawyers, Minnesota Multidistrict Litigation Lawyers, Mississippi Multidistrict Litigation Lawyers, Missouri Multidistrict Litigation Lawyers, Montana Multidistrict Litigation Lawyers, Nebraska Multidistrict Litigation Lawyers, Nevada Multidistrict Litigation Lawyers, New Hampshire Multidistrict Litigation Lawyers, New York Multidistrict Litigation Lawyers, North Carolina Multidistrict Litigation Lawyers, North Dakota Multidistrict Litigation Lawyers, Ohio Multidistrict Litigation Lawyers, Oklahoma Multidistrict Litigation Lawyers, Oregon Multidistrict Litigation Lawyers, Pennsylvania Multidistrict Litigation Lawyers, Rhode Island Multidistrict Litigation Lawyers, South Carolina Multidistrict Litigation Lawyers, South Dakota Multidistrict Litigation Lawyers, Texas Multidistrict Litigation Lawyers, Transvaginal mesh, Utah Multidistrict Litigation Lawyers, Virginia Multidistrict Litigation Lawyers, Washington DC Multidistrict Litigation Lawyers, Washington Multidistrict Litigation Lawyers, West Virginia Multidistrict Litigation Lawyers, Wisconsin Multidistrict Litigation Lawyers, Wyoming Multidistrict Litigation Lawyers

C.R Bard is one of the manufacturers of the Prolene vaginal mesh products and is the focus of vaginal mesh lawsuits by transvaginal mesh lawsuit lawyers. 1000's of women have been injured by vaginal mesh implants manufactured by a number of corporations including C.R Bard. Multi district litigation lawyers of the vaginal mesh department are filing 100's of lawsuits for mesh complications.

Bard Faces First Federal Trial Over Vaginal Mesh Next Year
By Jef Feeley and David Voreacos – May 2, 2012 5:05 PM ET

C.R. Bard Inc. will face its first federal-court trial next year over claims that the company’s vaginal-mesh implants injured women.

U.S. District Judge Joseph R. Goodwin in Charleston, West Virginia, set a Feb. 5 trial date for the first of about 600 federal cases contending that Bard’s Avaulta device caused organ damage. Goodwin is overseeing a consolidation of cases filed in federal courts across the U.S. against Bard, Johnson & Johnson and other makers of vaginal-mesh inserts.

The order of trials for the first federal cases over Avaulta “will be determined after completion” of pretrial information exchanges between Bard and the plaintiffs, Goodwin said in his order yesterday.

Bard, based in Murray Hill, New Jersey, and a unit of New Brunswick, New Jersey-based J&J also face litigation in U.S. state courts over their mesh products. More than 75,000 women a year have the devices inserted vaginally to treat pelvic organs that bulge, or prolapse, or to deal with incontinence.

Scott Lowry, a Bard spokesman, didn’t immediately return a call for comment on the judge’s decision to set the trial date.

A U.S. Food and Drug Administration report in August 2011 found that vaginal-mesh products should be classified as posing a high risk to patients based on a review of side-effect reports submitted to regulators from January 2008 to December 2010. Women’s groups are demanding that the devices be recalled.
More Study

In January, the FDA ordered 31 manufacturers, including Bard and J&J (JNJ), to study rates of organ damage and complications linked to the vaginal-mesh implants. The companies must conduct three years of studies on the devices’ safety and effectiveness, regulators said. Some women contend the devices eroded and shrank over time, causing pain and injuries.

Some mesh suits blaming Bard and J&J for injuries are pending in state court in Atlantic City, New Jersey. Superior Court Judge Carol Higbee is coordinating discovery in those cases. Higbee has set a Nov. 5 trial for the first case against J&J’s Ethicon unit over claims that its Gynecare Prolift vaginal-mesh insert harmed women.

In February, the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation consolidated federal suits against pelvic mesh makers before Goodwin. The judge is overseeing evidence-gathering efforts in cases against Bard, J&J, Boston Scientific Corp. (BSX) and the American Medical Systems unit of Endo Pharmaceutical Holdings Inc.

Endo’s AMS unit also faces claims in state courts in Delaware and Minnesota over its Perigee, Apogee and Elevate surgical mesh products, according to court filings.
‘Day In Court’

Goodwin has appointed Bryan Aylstock, Fred Thompson III and Henry G. Garrard III to lead a group of plaintiffs’ lawyers who will oversee the progress pretrial information exchanges over the consolidated federal cases.

Aylstock, a Pensacola, Florida-based lawyer, said he was pleased Goodwin set the first trial over Bard’s mesh product for early next year.

“We have a lot of women who have suffered devastating consequences from the Avaulta product and they deserve their day in court,” the plaintiffs’ lawyer said in a telephone interview.

The Bard consolidated cases are In re C.R. Bard Inc. Pelvic Repair System Products Liability Litigation, 2:10-MD-02187, U.S. District Court, Southern District of West Virginia (Charleston).

To contact the reporters on this story: Jef Feeley in Wilmington, Delaware, at jfeeley@bloomberg.net; David Voreacos in Newark, New Jersey, at dvoreacos@bloomberg.net

Dangerous Devices Harming Women, Vaginal Mesh Lawyers File Mesh Lawsuits

Written by lisaspitzer on . Posted in Alabama Multidistrict Litigation Lawyers, Arizona Multidistrict Litigation Lawyers, Arkansas Multidistrict Litigation Lawyers, California Multidistrict Litigation Lawyers, Colorado Multidistrict Litigation Lawyers, Connecticut Multidistrict Litigation Lawyers, Florida Multidistrict Litigation Lawyers, Georgia Multidistrict Litigation Lawyers, Idaho Multidistrict Litigation Lawyers, Illinois Multidistrict Litigation Lawyers, Indiana Multidistrict Litigation Lawyers, Iowa Multidistrict Litigation Lawyers, Kansas Multidistrict Litigation Lawyers, Maine Multidistrict Litigation Lawyers, Maryland Multidistrict Litigation Lawyers, Massachusetts Multidistrict Litigation Lawyers, Medical Device Lawsuits, Michigan Multidistrict Litigation Lawyers, Minnesota Multidistrict Litigation Lawyers, Mississippi Multidistrict Litigation Lawyers, Montana Multidistrict Litigation Lawyers, Nebraska Multidistrict Litigation Lawyers, Nevada Multidistrict Litigation Lawyers, New Hampshire Multidistrict Litigation Lawyers, New Jersey Multidistrict Litigation Lawyers, New Mexico Multidistrict Litigation Lawyers, North Carolina Multidistrict Litigation Lawyers, Oklahoma Multidistrict Litigation Lawyers, Oregon Multidistrict Litigation Lawyers, Pennsylvania Multidistrict Litigation Lawyers, South Carolina Multidistrict Litigation Lawyers, South Dakota Multidistrict Litigation Lawyers, Tennessee Multidistrict Litigation Lawyers, Texas Multidistrict Litigation Lawyers, Transvaginal mesh, Virginia Multidistrict Litigation Lawyers, Washington DC Multidistrict Litigation Lawyers, Washington Multidistrict Litigation Lawyers, West Virginia Multidistrict Litigation Lawyers, Wisconsin Multidistrict Litigation Lawyers, Wyoming Multidistrict Litigation Lawyers

Vaginal mesh lawyers are filing lawsuits the vaginal mesh and bladder sling. These prolene mesh devices have been used  and surgically implanted in over 300,000 women and severe complications are being reported. The vaginal mesh lawyers demand justice and are filing lawsuits on behalf of these thousands of injured women nationwide. We are filing mesh lawsuits in L.A, Houston, Dallas, NYC, Phiiadelphia, Baltimore, Detroit, Chicago, San Fransisco, Miami, Jacksonville, Atlanta, Los Angeles, Phoenix, San Antonio, San Diego, Dallas, San Jose, Indianapolis, Austin, Columbus, Fort Worth, Charlotte, El Paso, Memphis, Boston, Seattle, D.C. Nashville, Denver, Milwaukee, Portland, Las Vegas, Oklahoma City, Albuquerque, Tucson, Fresno,Sacramento,Long Beach,Kansas City, Mesa, Virginia Beach,Colorado Springs, Omaha, Cleveland, Tulsa, Oakland, Minneapoplis, Wichita, Arlington and just about every city in the United States; even Alaska and Hawaii.

Women are suffering and husbands and families are suffering along with them, The vaginal mesh lawsuits being filed by our mesh lawyers  are multi-deistrct litigations, not  class actions. That means that the cases are assigned to certain jurisdictions in the country. The current largest mesh lawsuit filings are in West Virginia and New Jersey.

There are approximately 11 manufacturers involved in the vaginal mesh lawsuits. The primary  ones are: Johnson and Johnson, Bard, Boston Scientific and American medical Systems. To start the mesh lawsuit process contact our vaginal mesh lawyers today. Our mesh hotline is open 24hr, 7days.

If you have a vaginal mesh implant with complications from these manufacturers call us to learn your rights in the vaginal mesh lawsuit.

  •     AMS Elevate Prolapse Repair System
  •     AMS Apogee Vault Suspension System
  •     AMS Perigee System
  •     AMS Monarc Sling System
  •     AMS Sparc Sling System
  •     Bard Avaulta Support System
  •     Boston Scientific Pinnacle Pelvic Floor Repair Kit
  •     Boston Scientific Uphold Vaginal Support System
  •     Ethicon Gynecare Gynemesh
  •     Ethicon Gynecare Prolene Soft Mesh
  •     Ethicon Gynecare Prolift Pelvic Floor Repair System
  •     Ethicon Gynecare TVT Transvaginal Sling
  •     UGYTEX Dual Knit Mesh
  •     Coviden IVS Tunneler Sling

 

Call now, Vaginal Mesh representatives are here to take your call and foward it to a mesh lawyer for respone.

Women Sueing For Vaginal Mesh Malfunction

Written by lisaspitzer on . Posted in Medical Device Lawsuits, Transvaginal mesh

Thousands of women nationwide are sueing the manufacturers of various vaginal mesh and bladder sling implants for the complications that have destroyed their lives and marriages.

The vaginal mesh is a Prolene sling device used for bladder, bowel or Uterine prolapse and incontinence. However is has had vary severe complications including: erosion into the vaginal canal, bladder and bowel, organ perforation, infections that never go away, bleeding,lower back pain and the inability to have sexual intercourse.

Manufacturers:

Transvaginal Mesh, Vaginal Mesh and Bladder Sling  Manufacturers

Bard, Gynecare, ( a J & J Ethicon product ), AMS (American Medical Systems) and Boston Scientific  have the largest market shares of transvaginal mesh products.

C.R. Bard's products include:

        Bard Pelvitex
        Bard Pelvisoft
        Bard Pelvilace or Pelvicol
        Bard Utrtex
        Bard Uretex TO
        Bard Uretex TOO2
        Bard Uretex TOO3

Gynecare/Ethicon/Johnson & Johnson products include:

        Gynecare Prosima
        Gynecare TVT Exact
        Gynecare TVT Abbrevo
        Gynecare TVT Retropubic System
        Gynecare TVT
        Gynecare TVT Obturator
        Gynecare TVT Secur
        Gynecare Gynemesh PS
        Gynecare Prolift
        Gynecare Prolift+M

AMS's products include:

        AMS MiniArc Precise Single-Incision Sling
        AMS MiniArc Single Incision Sling
        AMS Monarc Subfascial Hammock
        AMS In-Fast Ultra Transvaginal Sling
        AMS BioArc
        AMS Sparc Self-Fixating Sling System
        AMS Elevate
        AMS Perigree
        AMS Apogee

Boston Scientific products include:

        Boston Scientific Arise
        Boston Scientific Pinnacle
        Boston Scientific Advantage Fit
        Boston Scientific Lynx
        Boston Scientific Obtryx
        Boston Scientific Prefyx PPS
        Boston Scientific Solyx

Tyco Covidian (which manufacturers the Tyco Covidian Duo and Mentor ObTape)

The mesh litgations are not class actions but, multi -district litigations. They are consolidated in certain courtrooms in the country. For an experienced multi district litigation lawyer handing the mesh call our network today.

 

J & J Sold Vaginal Mesh Without Approval, Vaginal Mesh Lawyers filing Vaginal Mesh Lawsuits For Injured Women

Written by lisaspitzer on . Posted in Medical Device Lawsuits, Transvaginal mesh

Vaginal Mesh Multi District Litigation lawsuits are being filed by the Vaginal mesh Multi District  litigation division of Class Action Lawyer Network. It appear Johnson and Johnson was selling the vaginal mesh product on it's own initiative.

J&J Sold Vaginal Mesh Implant After Sales Halt Ordered
By DVoreacos and A Nussbaum – Jun 26, 2012 2:23 PM ET

Johnson & Johnson (JNJ), the biggest health-care products maker, continued to sell a vaginal mesh implant for nine months after U.S. regulators told the company to stop marketing the device, according to court records.

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration told J&J in a letter on Aug. 24, 2007, to halt Gynecare Prolift sales until the agency decided whether the device was “substantially equivalent” to other products on the market. The FDA cited the “potential high risk for organ perforation” when surgeons insert the mesh vaginally to support weakened pelvic tissue.
Enlarge image J&J Sold Vaginal Mesh Implant After FDA Ordered Sales Halted

On June 5, J&J said it will stop selling four vaginal mesh implants including the Prolift. Photographer: Daniel Acker/Bloomberg

“You may not market this device until you have provided adequate information” on 16 potential deficiencies and received FDA approval, the agency told New Brunswick, New Jersey-based J&J in the letter. “If you market the device without conforming to these requirements, you will be in violation of the Federal Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act.”

The FDA cleared the device in May 2008 without ordering sanctions, after nine months of negotiations with J&J’s Ethicon unit. The company faces more than 1,400 lawsuits by women who said the mesh caused organ perforation, pain, scarring and nerve damage. Lawyers for the women said the device’s approval history could increase J&J’s cost to resolve the litigation.

J&J began selling the Prolift in 2005 without filing a new application after determining on its own that it was substantially similar to the Gynemesh, a company device already approved by the FDA, said Matthew Johnson, a J&J spokesman, in an e-mail. The device maker relied on FDA guidance for when companies must submit new applications, Johnson said.

The FDA disagreed with J&J’s interpretation and required a new application that prompted questions in the August 2007 letter, Morgan Liscinsky, an agency spokeswoman, said in an e- mail.

J&J faced no sanctions because the FDA determined that the company applied the guidance in good faith and it “promptly complied” when the agency required a new application, Liscinsky said.
Fines, Injunctions

Sanctions for selling products without approval may include fines, injunctions against a company or senior managers and the seizure of illegally marketed devices, Liscinsky said.

The August 2007 letter was “only one part of an extended dialogue with FDA in 2007-08, and it is out of context,” Johnson said in the e-mail. “Throughout this process, our actions were responsible, appropriate and consistent with FDA regulations.”

Henry G. Garrard III, a lawyer who represents women suing in federal court in Charleston, said the FDA’s failure to take additional steps to halt Prolift sales or to sanction J&J raises questions about the agency’s power to protect patients.

“Companies know the FDA has little enforcement ability and scarce resources,” Garrard, of Blasingame, Burch, Garrard & Ashley PC in Athens, Georgia, said in a telephone interview.

“Every woman in America who has been implanted with these devices absolutely should be outraged,” he said. “They should be mad at the company because the company knew they could get away with it.”
‘Water Pistol’

The Prolift negotiations point out “the industry’s ability to shrug off FDA enforcement,” said Erik Gordon, a business professor at the University of Michigan, in an e-mail. “If companies can get away with selling products they aren’t supposed to sell, the FDA is a sheriff packing a water pistol.”

The U.S. Senate is to vote today on changes to the FDA’s device-review system, which has drawn scrutiny for allowing implants like vaginal mesh on the market without human testing.

The bill increases funding for reviews and the FDA’s power to order safety studies after a product is cleared. It doesn’t include powers sought by consumer groups to let the FDA require clinical trials for more implants before they reach the market. The House of Representatives approved the measure last week.
Implants Threaded

Surgeons thread mesh implants through vaginal incisions and use the devices to treat incontinence or pelvic organ prolapse, a condition in which weakened muscles fail to support organs. Almost 300,000 were used in U.S. women in 2010, the FDA estimated last year.

An FDA database of reported malfunctions, deaths and serious injuries shows the agency received 123 complaints about the Prolift from 2005 to May 15, 2008, when the device won clearance. The company said in a September 2007 letter to regulators that reported problems accounted for less than 0.5 percent of sales for both Gynemesh and Prolift.

An agency report in July found a fivefold jump in deaths, injuries or malfunctions tied to prolapse mesh inserted vaginally. In January, the FDA ordered J&J, Murray Hill, New Jersey-based C.R. Bard Inc. (BCR) and other manufacturers to study organ damage and complications related to the products.
Sales Estimates

Manufacturers including J&J sold about $175 million worth of prolapse mesh worldwide and another $295 million for incontinence treatments in 2010, C.R. Bard executives estimated on a conference call that year. Even for top sellers of the devices, the products made up no more than 2 percent of company sales, said Michael Matson, a Mizuho Securities USA analyst in New York.

The numbers declined as lawsuits were filed, he said in a telephone interview.

“The doctors aren’t implanting them,” Matson said. “The patients don’t want them.”

On June 5, J&J said it will stop selling four vaginal mesh implants including the Prolift. The move wasn’t a recall and J&J remains confident in the safety and effectiveness of the devices, Johnson said. The company won’t withdraw the Prolift before its “planned discontinuation” of the mesh products over the next three to nine months, he said.

“Our decision to discontinue these products is based on their commercial viability in light of changing market dynamics,” he said.
Label Update

In letters to state and federal judges, the company said that it will update labeling for one device, the Gynemesh, to allow only abdominal, not vaginal, insertion.

The FDA learned of the Prolift after J&J cited it in an application to sell a related device, the Prolift+M, Liscinsky said. The agency told J&J to file for the Prolift as well, and it combined the review for both devices before the August 2007 letter.

“Due to the complexity of this procedure and potential high risk for organ perforation, bench testing is not sufficient to demonstrate device safety and efficacy,” the FDA said in the letter. Bench testing refers to laboratory testing to determine how a device will function in a person.

In the August 2007 letter, the FDA asked 16 questions about the Gynemesh and Prolift, which are made of the same nonabsorbable polymer. The Prolift kit includes pre-shaped mesh and instruments to help surgeons implant the device.
Complications

One FDA query was about a “significant number” of complications from 2004 to 2007 on the earlier device, the Gynemesh. The agency got 174 such reports, including for infection, abscess and organ perforation. Most of the cases required additional surgery.

The agency’s letter also found that labeling for the Prolift+M device was deficient because it couldn’t support claims that the mesh has “elastic properties that allow adaptation to physiological stresses.” In its response, J&J agreed to remove that claim.

Many of the documents unsealed last month include e-mails between J&J and the FDA over the wording of product labeling about the benefits and risks.

Six days before the FDA cleared the Prolift, J&J agreed in a written response to say in the label that the safety and effectiveness of the device, compared to conventional surgical repair without mesh, “have not been demonstrated in randomized controlled clinical trials.”

Rather, J&J wrote, the substantial equivalence to earlier approved devices had been demonstrated through other tests.

The federal cases are In re Ethicon Inc., Pelvic Repair System Products Liability Litigation, 12-md-02327, U.S. District Court, Southern District of West Virginia (Charleston).

If you have a Gynecare Vaginal mesh and are having complications call us today. We are also accepting cases for Yaz, Yasmin, Mirena IUD, NuvaRing and all drugs and devices harming women.

 

Bard Begins Trials for Vaginal Mesh, Vaginal Mesh Lawyers Ready

Written by Class Action Lawyer on . Posted in Medical Device Lawsuits, Transvaginal mesh

Bard Faces First Federal Trial Over Vaginal Mesh Next Year

C.R. Bard Inc. will face its first federal-court trial next year over claims that the company’s vaginal-mesh implants injured women.

U.S. District Judge Joseph R. Goodwin in Charleston, West Virginia, set a Feb. 5 trial date for the first of about 600 federal cases contending that Bard’s Avaulta device caused organ damage. Goodwin is overseeing a consolidation of cases filed in federal courts across the U.S. against Bard, Johnson & Johnson and other makers of vaginal-mesh inserts.

The order of trials for the first federal cases over Avaulta “will be determined after completion” of pretrial information exchanges between Bard and the plaintiffs, Goodwin said in his order yesterday.

Bard, based in Murray Hill, New Jersey, and a unit of New Brunswick, New Jersey-based J&J also face litigation in U.S. state courts over their mesh products. More than 75,000 women a year have the devices inserted vaginally to treat pelvic organs that bulge, or prolapse, or to deal with incontinence.

Scott Lowry, a Bard spokesman, didn’t immediately return a call for comment on the judge’s decision to set the trial date.

A U.S. Food and Drug Administration report in August 2011 found that vaginal-mesh products should be classified as posing a high risk to patients based on a review of side-effect reports submitted to regulators from January 2008 to December 2010. Women’s groups are demanding that the devices be recalled.

More Study

In January, the FDA ordered 31 manufacturers, including Bard and J&J (JNJ) (JNJ), to study rates of organ damage and complications linked to the vaginal-mesh implants. The companies must conduct three years of studies on the devices’ safety and effectiveness, regulators said. Some women contend the devices eroded and shrank over time, causing pain and injuries.

Some mesh suits blaming Bard and J&J for injuries are pending in state court in Atlantic City, New Jersey. Superior Court Judge Carol Higbee is coordinating discovery in those cases. Higbee has set a Nov. 5 trial for the first case against J&J’s Ethicon unit over claims that its Gynecare Prolift vaginal-mesh insert harmed women.

In February, the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation consolidated federal suits against pelvic mesh makers before Goodwin. The judge is overseeing evidence-gathering efforts in cases against Bard, J&J, Boston Scientific Corp. (BSX) (BSX) and the American Medical Systems unit of Endo Pharmaceutical Holdings Inc.

Endo’s AMS unit also faces claims in state courts in Delaware and Minnesota over its Perigee, Apogee and Elevate surgical mesh products, according to court filings.

‘Day In Court’

Goodwin has appointed Bryan Aylstock, Fred Thompson III and Henry G. Garrard III to lead a group of plaintiffs’ lawyers who will oversee the progress pretrial information exchanges over the consolidated federal cases.

Aylstock, a Pensacola, Florida-based lawyer, said he was pleased Goodwin set the first trial over Bard’s mesh product for early next year.

“We have a lot of women who have suffered devastating consequences from the Avaulta product and they deserve their day in court,” the plaintiffs’ lawyer said in a telephone interview.

The Bard consolidated cases are In re C.R. Bard Inc. Pelvic Repair System Products Liability Litigation, 2:10-MD-02187, U.S. District Court, Southern District of West Virginia (Charleston).

To contact the reporters on this story: Jef Feeley in Wilmington, Delaware, at jfeeley@bloomberg.net; David Voreacos in Newark, New Jersey, at dvoreacos@bloomberg.net

Multi District Litigation Vaginal Mesh  lawyers are ready to file.