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...

Posts Tagged ‘mesh lawyer’

Stockert 3T Heater-Cooler Lawyers

Written by lisaspitzer on . Posted in Alabama Multidistrict Litigation Lawyers, Alaska Multidistrict Litigation Lawyers, Arizona Multidistrict Litigation Lawyers, Atlanta, Baltimore, Biloxi, Boca Raton, Boston, Charleston, Charlotte, Dallas, Denver, Detroit, Florida Multidistrict Litigation Lawyers, Fort Lauderdale, Georgia Multidistrict Litigation Lawyers, Kansas city, Los Angeles, Louisville, Macon, Maryland Multidistrict Litigation Lawyers, Massachusetts Multidistrict Litigation Lawyers, Miami, Michigan Multidistrict Litigation Lawyers, Minneapolis, New York Multidistrict Litigation Lawyers, North Carolina Multidistrict Litigation Lawyers, Philadelphia, Phoenix, Provo, st louis, Stocker 3THeater-Cooler Lawyers, Toledo, West Palm Beach

Stockert 3T Heater-Cooler Lawyers For  Wrongful Death Lawsuits

Stockert 3T Heater-Cooler System lawyers are filing failure  to warn lawsuits due to increased risk of infections caused by the Cooler Systems during cardio thoracic surgery.

 Stockert 3T Lawsuits Filed

Lawsuits are being filed against  LivaNova PLC for their  3T heating-cooling system. This system has been found to transmit bacteria into patients during  open-chest cardiac surgery. The nontuberculous mycobacteria causes Mycobacterium chimaera which can result in death,

What is  The 3T Heater-Cooler System?

The 3T heater-cooler units are used during surgery to control  body temperature.  They  have water tanks that move temperature-controlled water to heat exchangers or blankets, which  cool or warm  the recipients body.

 3T Heater-Cooler System Issues

The water  in the 3T systems can become contaminated resulting  in bacteria being released into the air through the device’s exhaust vent. This bacteria can infect a patient. It can take  several years between the time a patient is exposed to the bacteria and an infection is diagnosed.

Have You Had Surgery Using A 3T Cooler Device?

Up To 4 Years After Surgery Look for signs:

  • endocarditis,
  • surgical site infection,
  • abscess, bacteremia,
  • hepatitis,
  • renal insufficiency,
  • splenomegaly,
  • pancytopenia,
  • osteomyelitis.

 Symptoms

  • fever of undetermined origin,
  • night sweats,
  • joint pain,
  • weight loss,
  • myalgia,
  • malaise.
 

Contact our  Stocker 3T Lawyers

Ethicon Physiomesh Lawyer | Hernia mesh Lawsuits Filed

Written by lisaspitzer on . Posted in Ethicon Physiomesh lawyer

Ethicon Physiomesh Hernia Mesh Recall Lawyers

On May 25, 2016, Johnson & Johnson issued an “Urgent Field Safety Notice” to warning  of the higher rates of recurring hernia and the need for revision operations after hernia repair using the Ethicon Physiomesh Composite Mesh. This is the same company that is dealing with hundreds of vaginal mesh lawsuits made of the same substance as the physiomesh.

Physiomesh Hernia Mesh  Complications

  • Hernia Recurrence
  • Scar-like tissue that sticks tissues together
  • Blockage of the large or small intestine
  • Abnormal adhesions between organs, vessels or intestines
  • Fluid build-up at the surgical site
  • Perforation of nearby tissues or organs
  • Migration and shrinkage
  • Bowel perforation and obstruction
  • Migration of the mesh and  erosion resulting in the need for revision or removal

What Is A Physiomesh?

  • Ethicon Physiomesh and vaginal  mesh are both used to provide additional support to weakened or damaged tissue.  It is made from non-absorbable polypropylene (plastic) filaments that are woven into a mesh.
Ethicon Physiomesh Products Recalled ETHICON PHYSIOMESH™ Flexible Composite Mesh
  • PHY0715R
  • PHY1015V
  • PHY1515Q
  • PHY1520R
  • PHY1520V
  • PHY2025V
  • PHY2030R
  • PHY2535V
  • PHY3035R
  • PHY3050R

    Laparoscopic Hernia Pack

  • ELH5 PHY1515
  • ELH10 PHY1515Q
Ethicon Physiomesh Complications? Speak to one our mesh lawyers.  

Stryker Femoral Heads Hip Replacement Lawyers

Written by lisaspitzer on . Posted in Class MDL Class Action News, Stryker femoral head hip Implant lawyer

Stryker V40 Taper Hip Replacement Lawyers Stryker Hip Replacement Lawyers

Hip Implant lawyers are filing hip replacement lawsuits for V40 Femoral head failure in the Stryker Hip Implant. In August 2016, Stryker contacted implanting physicians about metal wear associated with its V40 Taper when used with some cobalt chromium heads.Stryker Orthopaedics sent an Urgent Medical Device Recall Notification to orthopedic surgeons. The recall involves certain sizes of LIFT™ Anatomic CoCr V40™ Femoral Heads manufactured prior to 2011. If you had a LIFT- V40 Femoral Head implanted during total hip replacement, you should be watching for a letter from your surgeon in the next few weeks. You may also be getting a letter from Stryker or a company hired by Stryker to handle claims.

 Stryker Recall Metal V 40 Femoral Heads Lawsuits

Stryker has voluntarily recalled some of their metal V40 femoral heads used with hip implants. Stryker hip replacement lawyers are interested in speaking to anyone with a failed: Exeter, Citation, Meridian, Reliance, Definition, Restoration, Accolade Rejuvenate ABG 2 stems.

This failure may be due to the problems with the V40 femoral head.

The failure of these heads is caused by corrosion and metal debris at the junction between the metal head and neck. The clinical results for patients include pain, loss of mobility, ambulation problems and an inability to work. Poisoning of the soft tissue, muscle and bone are the cause. Revision surgeries may be needed due to premature failures. Stryker lawyers  are seeking patients with  LFit V40 femoral heads made before 2011.

What Is The Femoral Head  Problem?

This is a ball for total hip replacements that can be attached to hip stems, including the Accolade TMZF, Accolade 2, Meridian, and Citation. There have been numerous incidents  of taper lock failures on LFit V40 femoral heads made before 2011,  This taper lock connects the “ball” part of the hip joint to the  hip stem that is inserted in the femur. When it breaks the femoral head will detach from the femoral neck.

Get A Stryker Hip Implant Lawyer

Our Stryker Hip Replacement lawyers are currently accepting Stryker LFit V40 failure cases.

Stryker Rejuvinate Lawsuits, Stryker Hip Replacement Lawyers

Written by lisaspitzer on . Posted in Medical Device Lawsuits

Stryker Hip Replacement lawyers are filing lawsuits for injury from the newly recalled Stryker Rejuvinate Hip Replacement.

Stryker issued a recall of two component hip parts related to their Trident hip replacement system in 2008, as a number of patients came forward with assertions of pain related to their Trident hip implants. In addition, squeaking and popping sounds and sensations were reported by a number of patients, which could be embarrassing as well as indicative of other complications associated with the products. Some patients reported even more serious complications, including implant failure and bone fractures. A number of these patients had to undergo revision surgery in order to correct them.

A number of victims have chosen  file a Stryker hip replacement lawsuit lafter experiencing serious complications linked to the devices, and a consolidation of a number of lawsuits has taken place. Some lawsuits have been consolidated in the New Jersey Superior Court of Atlantic County and are being presided over by Judge Carol Higbee.

If you have been injured by a Stryker Rejuvinate Hip replacement recall contact us to review your medical records to see if you have a claim against the manufacturer

Stryker Hip Replacement Lawyers, Stryker Hip Replacement Recall News

Written by lisaspitzer on . Posted in Connecticut Multidistrict Litigation Lawyers, Delaware Multidistrict Litigation Lawyers, Florida Multidistrict Litigation Lawyers, Georgia Multidistrict Litigation Lawyers, Illinois Multidistrict Litigation Lawyers, Indiana Multidistrict Litigation Lawyers, Iowa Multidistrict Litigation Lawyers, Kansas Multidistrict Litigation Lawyers, Maine Multidistrict Litigation Lawyers, Michigan Multidistrict Litigation Lawyers, Minnesota Multidistrict Litigation Lawyers, Mississippi Multidistrict Litigation Lawyers, Nevada Multidistrict Litigation Lawyers, New Jersey Multidistrict Litigation Lawyers, New York Multidistrict Litigation Lawyers, Ohio Multidistrict Litigation Lawyers, Oklahoma Multidistrict Litigation Lawyers, Oregon Multidistrict Litigation Lawyers, Pennsylvania Multidistrict Litigation Lawyers, Product Recall News, Texas Multidistrict Litigation Lawyers, 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

The Stryker Rejuvenate Hip Recall for metal toxicity was a surprise to many patients and doctors because it is not a metal on metal hip. In fact, many patients selected this hip to avoid the metallosis problem that has been in the news for the last two years since the DePuy ASR metal on metal recall in August of 2010.

The Stryker Rejuvenate hip is made with a ceramic ball and a polyethylene liner in the acetabular cup. The recalled DePuy ASR and the recalled Smith & Nephew R3 hips both have a metal ball and a metal cup which is called a metal on metal articulation. The problem with the metal on metal hips is that the metal on metal interface generates metallic debris that is toxic to the tissues in the hip compartment causing fluid buildup, tissue damage, and failure of the implant.

A lawsuit claiming that Stryker Corporation was negligent and did not adequately warn patients about the risks associated with its Trident hip replacement system was filed in the Superior Court of the State of Indiana for the County of Marion by plaintiff Darlene A. Gray. On the 5th of September, 2012, the suit was removed under federal diversity jurisdiction. The lawsuit claims that plaintiff Gray had the Trident hip system implanted after suffering from avascular necrosis of the right hip for a number of years, however, the device failed much earlier than what would be reasonably expected, she was forced to undergo Stryker revision surgery in order to correct complications she was experiencing as a result of her implant.
Recall issued over parts

Stryker issued a recall of two component hip parts related to their Trident hip replacement system in 2008, as a number of patients came forward with assertions of pain related to their Trident hip implants. In addition, squeaking and popping sounds and sensations were reported by a number of patients, which could be embarrassing as well as indicative of other complications associated with the products. Some patients reported even more serious complications, including implant failure and bone fractures. A number of these patients had to undergo revision surgery in order to correct them.

The plaintiff is seeking compensation based on damages associated with medical expenses and pain and suffering that she has experienced as a result of her use of the allegedly defective product. She is making claims of negligence and defective product claims against Stryker Orthopedics.
Lawsuits consolidated in New Jersey

A number of patients have chosen to go ahead with Stryker hip litigation after experiencing serious complications linked to the devices, and a consolidation of a number of lawsuits has taken place. Some lawsuits have been consolidated in the New Jersey Superior Court of Atlantic County and are being presided over by Judge Carol Higbee.

GranuFlo Recall, GranuFlo Lawyers

Written by lisaspitzer on . Posted in Class MDL Class Action News

 GranuFlo recall announced causing sudden heart attacks and death. GranuFlo lawyers filing lawsuits.

FDA Issues GranuFlo Recall
Elise Kramer | September 13th, 2012 | Posted in GranuFlo Lawsuits, Injury Lawsuit News

The Food and Drug Administration issued a recall of the dialysis products GranuFlo and NaturaLyte on the 29th of March, 2012, after a memo from drug maker Fresenius Medical Care was leaked to the public. These products are used during hemodialysis in order to remove toxins from the bloodstream of a patient whose kidneys are not functioning properly; however, GranuFlo and NaturaLyte have been linked to an increased risk of heart attack and sudden death. A number of patients who have experienced these side effects or whose loved ones have experienced them have filed suit against the drug manufacturer in the hopes of gaining compensation for the injuries.
Dangerous side effects linked to products

GranuFlo and NaturaLyte are similar products which were both designed to reduce the build-up of acid in the blood and to utilize bicarbonate in order to neutralize acids. However, these products are different from their competitors in that they use greater concentrations of bicarbonate, which can lead to serious health issues especially if doctors miscalculate the proper and safe dosage. Fatal overdoses, which can cause sudden death, and heart attacks are the most serious side effects of this product.

Fresenius Medical Care published an internal memo on the 4th of November, 2011, regarding risks associated with their product. A reported 941 patients had suffered heart attacks linked to the use of these products, and the memo detailed these “troubling findings”. Medical staff were informed that the problem needed to be “addressed urgently.” However, no contact was made with the Food and Drug Administration about these concerns, and no public warning was issued to patients at risk for GranuFlo related side effects. The memo was leaked to the Food and Drug Administration, which prompted a recall of the products.
Recall leads to individual lawsuits

Patients alerted to the recall suddenly may have been able to connect adverse health events that they had experienced to the use of GranuFlo, and many have hired GranuFlo attorneys in an effort to seek compensation that could help cover injury-related costs they have accumulated.

Stryker Hip Replacement Lawsuits, Stryker Lawyers

Written by lisaspitzer on . Posted in Alabama Multidistrict Litigation Lawyers, Arizona Multidistrict Litigation Lawyers, Arkansas Multidistrict Litigation Lawyers, California Multidistrict Litigation Lawyers, Class MDL Class Action News, Colorado 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, 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, 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, Product Recall News, Rhode Island Multidistrict Litigation Lawyers, South Carolina Multidistrict Litigation Lawyers, South Dakota Multidistrict Litigation Lawyers, Tennessee Multidistrict Litigation Lawyers, Texas Multidistrict Litigation Lawyers, 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 lawsuits are beginning for the Stryker Rejuvenate Hip Replacemants. This is another failed implant just like the DePuy Hip Replacement. Both are metal component or metal on metal. If you have a faile Stryker Hip Replacment you must see a doctor as they have been recalled. Contact our Stryker Hip Replacement lawyers immediately. The news regarding the Stryker hip replacement is out. Stryker is faced with mounting lawsuits

New Jersey Stryker Hip Replacement Claims

many new nationwide  lawsuits were filed in New Jersey Superior Court, claiming that each of the plaintiffs received a Stryker Rejuvenate hip replacement, involving a modular femoral neck stem designed to allow the surgeon to customize the length of the component.

The lawsuits claim that the Stryker  design defects caused the hip replacements to loosen and move out of position, requiring people to undergo revision surgery.

What is The  Problem with Stryker Rejuvenate?

The Stryker Rejuvenate consists of a metal neck that fits inside of a metal stem to allow the implant to be customized for certain aspects of a patient’s anatomy and hip biomechanics.

In July 2012, a Stryker Rejuvenate recall was issued for the modular-neck hip stem components, due to a risk of corrosion at the modular neck junction. The design has been associated with metallosis problems where metal debris may be released into the body as the metal parts grind against each other, leading to hip pain, swelling, local tissue reactions and early failure of the entire hip replacement.

Stryker Lawyers Filing Stryker Rejuvenate Lawsuits

These lawsuits claim that  Stryker is liable for negligent design and manufacturing of the Stryker Rejuvenate system. Stryker has confirmed that the modular neck stem suffered from loosening, corrosion and fretting, similar to problems seen with metal-on-metal hip replacement systems.

The Stryker Hip Replacements Cause:

  • pseudotumors, tissue necrosis,
  • muscle loss,
  • bone loss around the implants,
  • metal poisoning or metallosis.

First Stryker Rejuvenate Lawsuite Filed, Stryker Hip Replacement Helpline

Written by lisaspitzer on . Posted in Medical Device Lawsuits

Stryker Lawsuit lawyers are beginning to file lawsuits for  the recalled Stryker Rejuvenate Hip replacement recall. The Stryker Rejuvenate Hip Replacement  has been causing serious injury.

 First Stryker Rejuvenate Hip Lawsuit Filed Since Recall
Tracy Ray | August 29th, 2012 | Posted in Stryker Hip Lawsuits

On July 5, 2012, Stryker Orthopaedics announced a voluntary recall of the modular-neck hip stems of its Rejuvenate Modular and ABG II hip implants, citing “the potential for fretting and/or corrosion at or about the modular-neck junction, which may result in adverse local tissue reactions manifesting with pain and/or swelling.” Now the first lawsuit has been filed since the Stryker Rejuvenate recall.

The plaintiff, Dianne Pingel, filed her lawsuit on August 7, 2012 in the Bergen County Superior Court of New Jersey, naming as defendants Howmedica Osteonics Corp., et al.
Plaintiff suffered a pseudotumor, necrosis, and metal poisoning

According to her lawsuit, Pingel had hip replacement surgery in October 2011, during which she was implanted with her second Stryker Rejuvenate hip. (Several months earlier, she had had a Rejuvenate implanted in her other hip.) Shortly after this second Rejuvenate was surgically implanted, Pingel began to experience pain and discomfort around the surgical site. Her doctor performed tests, but did not turn up any evidence of implant loosening or infection.

The plaintiff tried to continue going about her daily life and performing normal tasks, but her pain and discomfort did not abate. Further testing showed that a pseudotumor and possible fluid buildup had developed near the implant.

Pingel’s physician told her that Stryker hip revision surgery was necessary to alleviate her problem. But during the surgery, her surgeon found that not only did she have a pseudotumor, but she also had developed soft tissue necrosis, bony tissue necrosis, and metallosis (metal poisoning).

During that first revision surgery, Pingel’s femur fractured. Four weeks after the surgery, she suffered a second femur fracture as well as a hip dislocation, which required two additional revision surgeries to repair.
Lawsuit brings counts of negligence and failure to warn

Stryker issued its recall in July 2012. But according to Pingel’s Stryker hip lawyer, “It is believed that with respect to the Rejuvenate System, Defendant failed to timely report adverse events … [and] any and all information concerning product failures and corrections … [They also] sold a misbranded and adulterated product.”

Pingel’s lawsuit brings counts of negligence, failure to warn, breach of express warranty, and manufacturing defect. Her husband, a co-plaintiff, claims loss of consortium. The Pingels are seeking compensatory, punitive and other damages.

If you have a Stryker recalled hip replacement and have complications you must contact  our Stryker helpline immediately to begin taking th steps to file a stryker lawsuit.

Vaginal Mesh Lawsuits Trials Update, Vaginal Mesh Lawyers

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, Delaware Multidistrict Litigation Lawyers, Florida Multidistrict Litigation Lawyers, Georgia Multidistrict Litigation Lawyers, Hawaii 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, Missouri Multidistrict Litigation Lawyers, Montana Multidistrict Litigation Lawyers, Multidistrict Lawsuit News, Nebraska Multidistrict Litigation Lawyers, Nevada Multidistrict Litigation Lawyers, New Hampshire Multidistrict Litigation Lawyers, New Jersey Multidistrict Litigation Lawyers, New Mexico 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, 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 trials for the vaginal mesh lawsuits are going to begin in 2013. Thousands of women have been severely injured by the vaginal mesh devices.

Vaginal Mesh Lawsuit Update: Federal Judge Issues New Rulings In Pelvic Mesh MDLs
PR Web

New York, NY (PRWEB) August 27, 2012
Vaginal mesh lawsuits included in four related pelvic mesh multidistrict litigations are subject to newly issued discovery orders, Bernstein Liebhard LLP reports. On August 22 and August 23, 2012, the Honorable Joseph R. Goodwin, who is overseeing the pelvic mesh multidistrict litigations currently pending in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of West Virginia, issued four pretrial orders in the following actions: In re: American Medical Systems, Inc., Pelvic Repair Systems Products Liability Litigation (“MDL No. 2325”); In re: Boston Scientific Corp., Pelvic Repair Systems Products Liability Litigation (“MDL No. 2326”); In re: Ethicon, Inc., Pelvic Repair System Products Liability Litigation (“MDL No. 2327”); and In re: C.R. Bard, Inc., Pelvic Repair System Products Liability Litigation (“MDL No. 2187”).* The first three pretrial orders deal with the filing of complaints in the American Medical Systems, Boston Scientific Corp., and Ethicon MDLs. The fourth pretrial order sets forth deadlines for bellwether trial selection and related discovery in the C.R. Bard MDL.

Orders Standardize Complaint Forms For Plaintiffs To File Vaginal Mesh Lawsuits
The first three orders allow each plaintiff to utilize and complete a standardized complaint form in order to file a lawsuit against American Medical Systems, Boston Scientific Corp, and Ethicon, respectively. The standardized complaint promotes efficiency and expedites the litigation process. The form complaint allows plaintiffs to make claims against the pelvic mesh manufacturers for multiple causes of action, including: negligence, strict products liability, and breach of warranty. Additionally, the form complaints permit plaintiffs to seek damages, including: personal injury, wrongful death, economic loss, loss of services, and loss of consortium. Similarly, defendants must file a master answer in response to each complaint.  

Discovery Scheduling Order Issued In C.R. Bard MDL

Judge Goodwin also issued a pretrial order that will govern the course of the multidistrict litigation against C.R. Bard for the second group of lawsuits pending against the manufacturer. Previously, Judge Goodwin set a trial date of February 5, 2013 for the first federal vaginal mesh lawsuit against C.R. Bard. According to this latest order, trials for the second group of lawsuits against C.R. Bard will begin on June 24, 2013.

Coloplast Vaginal Mesh Lawyers, Coloplast Vaginal Mesh Lawsuits

Written by lisaspitzer on . Posted in Alabama Multidistrict Litigation Lawyers, Arkansas Multidistrict Litigation Lawyers, California Multidistrict Litigation Lawyers, Class MDL Class Action News, Colorado Multidistrict Litigation Lawyers, Connecticut Multidistrict Litigation Lawyers, Delaware Multidistrict Litigation Lawyers, Florida Multidistrict Litigation Lawyers, Idaho Multidistrict Litigation Lawyers, Illinois Multidistrict Litigation Lawyers, Indiana Multidistrict Litigation Lawyers, Iowa Multidistrict Litigation Lawyers, Maryland Multidistrict Litigation Lawyers, Massachusetts Multidistrict Litigation Lawyers, Michigan 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, South Carolina Multidistrict Litigation Lawyers, Texas Multidistrict Litigation Lawyers, Utah Multidistrict Litigation Lawyers, Virginia Multidistrict Litigation Lawyers, Washington DC Multidistrict Litigation Lawyers

As the lawsuits keep mounting up a new vaginal mesh manufacturer has been added. It seems as if there is no end to companies that have jumped on the golden mesh band wagon. Over 300,000 women have been implanted with vaginal mesh devices. Despite the warnings, and T.V lawyer ads,  doctors are still putting mesh in to this date. It never ceases to amaze me to see doctors sugggesting a brand new mesh over the old failed one. The vaginal mesh MDL lawyers are now filing lawsuits for a new mesh manufacturer that has been added to the West Virginia MDL, Coloplast. See the vaginal mesh news update below:

 Coloplast Vaginal Mesh  Products  Have Been Named in Mesh Lawsuits
According to their website, Coloplast develops products and services “to make life easier for people with deeply personal and private medical conditions.” The company has a special focus on surgical urology, developing surgical devices for both men and women. For women, Coloplast markets products to treat pelvic organ prolapse and to control urinary incontinence.
The August 6 order by the JPML centralized 13 Coloplast pelvic mesh lawsuits into West Virginia. All plaintiffs allege that the company’s products caused serious injuries. The products at issue in these lawsuits, Novasilk, Exair, Suspend, and Axis, are used to treat pelvic organ prolapse by supporting weakened pelvic muscles.
Consolidation into one court helps conserve resources, increase efficiency, and reduce the risk of duplicative discovery or conflicting rulings from other courts. Each lawsuit retains its individual nature, however, and will be returned to its original court for trial after pre-trial proceedings are complete.

This is part of the huge multi district litigations being filed by vaginal mesh lawyers for 1000's of women nationwide.