Yesterday, a New Jersey pelvic mesh jury returned its verdict for compensatory damages in the total amount of $33 million in favor of a woman and her husband against C.R. Bard, Inc. (“Bard”), finding that Bard knew that its pelvic mesh products were unsafe and that Bard failed to warn physicians regarding the potential risks associated with their pelvic mesh products.
The New Jersey mesh jury returned its verdict on its first full day of deliberations, following a trial that lasted almost four weeks. The pelvic mesh jury determined that the woman should be compensated $23 million for her delibitating pain and other injuries suffered as a result of the pelvic mesh manufactured by Bard that was implanted in her in March 2009, to treat her urinary stress incontinence and to support her bladder. Her surgeon used Bard’s Avaulta Solo Support System vaginal mesh product for her bladder condition and Bard’s Align Trans-Obturator Urethral Support System sling product for her urinary stress incontinence condition.
The New Jersey mesh jury also determined that the woman’s husband, who was also a plaintiff in the product liability case, should be compensated $10 million for his loss of consortium claim.
The New Jersey mesh jury is scheduled to return today to determine if punitive damages should be awarded, and, if so, the amount of punitive damages that would be appropriate.
The plaintiffs argued that Bard knew about the alleged defects in its mesh products before the woman underwent surgery in 2009, and that Bard failed to warn her surgeon regarding certain risks known to Bard. The plaintiff’s lawyer told the jury during closing arguments, “They knew that the problems with this mesh material were causing clinical harm to patients before this was ever put into Mary’s body. They knew it was unsafe, and these were among the many red lights [that Bard had blown through regarding warnings of the dangers of its mesh products and pushed them onto market anyway].”
The FDA warned in July 2011: “In October 2008, the FDA issued a Public Health Notification (PHN) to inform clinicians and patients of adverse events related to urogynecologic use of surgical mesh, and to provide recommendations on how to mitigate risks and how to counsel patients. Following the PHN, the FDA continued to monitor the outcomes of urogynecologic use of surgical mesh. A search of the FDA’s Manufacturer and User Device Experience (MAUDE) database from the last 3 years (January 1, 2008 – December 31, 2010), identified 2,874 Medical Device Reports (MDRs) for
urogynecologic surgical meshes, including reports of injury, death, and malfunctions. Among the 2,874 reports, 1,503 were associated with pelvic organ prolapse (POP) repairs, and 1,371 were associated with stress urinary incontinence (SUI) repairs.”
“The FDA also conducted a systematic review of the scientific literature to learn more about the safety and effectiveness of POP and SUI using surgical mesh. The FDA determined that (1) serious adverse events are NOT rare, contrary to what was stated in the 2008 PHN, and (2) transvaginally placed mesh in POP repair does NOT conclusively improve clinical outcomes over traditional non-mesh repair.”
If you or a family member were implanted with pelvic mesh or other surgical mesh and suffered complications, injuries, or chronic pain afterwards, you should find a mesh claim lawyer in your U.S. state who may investigate your surgical mesh claim for you and represent you in a claim against the manufacturer, distributor, and/or supplier of the surgical mesh, if appropriate.
Visit our website or call us toll-free in the United States at 800-295-3959 to find surgical mesh claim attorneys who may assist you.
Turn to us when you don’t know where to turn.