Boston Scientific To Pay Millions Following West Virginia Mesh Trial

Posted in Transvaginal Mesh

Trials against vaginal mesh device manufacturer, Boston Scientific Corp. (“Boston Scientific”), continue in West Virginia. Only one week after a jury in Miami’s federal court ordered Boston Scientific to pay $26.7 million to 4 plaintiffs, the company has now been ordered to pay another $18.5 million to an additional 4 plaintiffs. The plaintiffs in the recent West Virginia federal trial claimed injuries, including nerve damage, pain during sex and infection, as a result of the company’s Obtryx device. The jury not only awarded each of the plaintiffs several million dollars in compensatory damages, but also awarded each woman an additional one million dollars in punitive damages, finding the company acted with “gross negligence” in failing to adequately warn consumers and doctors about the risks involved with the device.

If you or a loved one has experienced any injury from the use of a vaginal mesh implant, please contact Stark & Stark and speak to one of the Mass Tort attorneys, free of charge, who can help assess any claims that you might have against a manufacturer.

Boston Scientific To Pay Millions Following First Federal Trial

Posted in Transvaginal Mesh

In November 2014, Boston Scientific Corp. was ordered to pay $26.7 million to 4 plaintiffs who allege injury as a result of the company’s transvaginal mesh devices. Following an eight-day trial, a jury in Miami’s federal court found that Boston Scientific Corp. had defectively designed the Pinnacle pelvic-organ implant and had failed to properly warn doctors and patients about the implant’s risk. Risks often include erosion leading to pain and organ damage. A representative for Boston Scientific Corp. denied the device suffered from design flaws and indicated that the company had strong grounds to overturn the verdict. More than 14,000 mesh cases are currently pending nationwide against Boston Scientific Corp.

If you or a loved one has experienced any injury from the use of a vaginal mesh implant, please contact Stark & Stark and speak to one of the Mass Tort attorneys, free of charge, who can help assess any claims that you might have against a manufacturer.

Stryker Orthopaedics Announces Settlement of Rejuvenate and ABG II Hip Device Lawsuits

Posted in Medical Devices

Howmedica Osteonics Corp., a subsidiary of Stryker Corporation, has agreed to settle the litigation over its Rejuvenate Modular-Neck hip stem and ABG II Modular-Neck hip stem devices. As reported by ABC News, Stryker has agreed to pay $1.43 billion to settle approximately four thousand lawsuits that are currently pending in New Jersey state court and federal court in Minnesota.

Plaintiffs alleged that Stryker sold defective hips that corroded in patients’ bodies and caused illness, including pain and swelling in the tissue around the implant. Some plaintiffs experienced muscle, nerve and bone damage within several years of the implant as metallic “dust” was released from the devices and absorbed into neighboring tissue. The company voluntarily recalled the defective implants in July 2012 after warning surgeons about the risks associated with the devices.

If you or a loved one has experienced any injury from the use of a Stryker Rejuvenate or ABG II hip replacement device, please contact Stark & Stark and speak to one of the Mass Tort attorneys, free of charge, who can help assess any claims that you might have against Stryker.

Endo International Settles Remaining Pelvic Mesh Cases for $400 Million

Posted in Transvaginal Mesh

Endo International Plc (“Endo”) has agreed to pay $400 million to resolve the remaining legal claims from women who allege that they were injured by the company’s transvaginal mesh devices. This settlement comes less than six months after Endo agreed to pay $830 million to settle other mesh lawsuits.

The settlement will resolve more than 10,000 lawsuits for an average of about $48,000 each according to reports. Since June 2013, Endo has paid approximately $1.3 billion to resolve lawsuits over the mesh devices.

If you or a loved one has experienced any injury from the use of a vaginal mesh implant, please contact Stark & Stark and speak to one of the Mass Tort attorneys, free of charge, who can help assess any claims that you might have against a manufacturer.

Plaintiff Wins $3.27 million Jury Award Against Ethicon

Posted in Transvaginal Mesh

The litigation against manufacturers of pelvic mesh devices continues to increase nationwide. A pelvic mesh implant is a synthetic material implanted and tied to ligaments or bone to lift and support internal organs. The implants were introduced over a decade ago, and can serve as an alternative to a hysterectomy. Thousands of women, who were allegedly uninformed about the dangers involved with the mesh implants, have since complained of injuries, including severe pain, infections and bleeding that often require follow-up surgeries.

As we previously reported, a Texas jury awarded $1.2 million to a woman that suffered injuries from her Ethicon pelvic mesh device. A federal jury in West Virginia recently awarded plaintiff Jo Huskey and her husband Allen, $3.27 million in the second bellwether trial against Ethicon. Ms. Huskey had alleged that the TVT-O pelvic mesh sling device, manufactured by Ethicon, was defectively designed and that Ethicon had failed to properly warn of the dangers of the device. The eight person jury deliberated for approximately two hours before making its decision.

If you or a loved one has experienced any injury from the use of a vaginal mesh implant, please contact Stark & Stark and speak to one of the Mass Tort attorneys, free of charge, who can help assess any claims that you might have against Johnson & Johnson.

First DePuy Pinnacle Hip Device Trial Begins

Posted in DePuy Pinnacle®

The trial of plaintiff Kathleen Herlihy-Paoli started last week in federal court in Dallas, Texas. The Paoli trial is the first of more than 6,000 cases filed across the country that have been consolidated in a Multidistrict Litigation (“MDL”) before the Honorable Edward Kinkeade, United States District Court Judge in the Northern District of Texas.

Plaintiffs allege that the Pinnacle metal-on-metal hip replacement device, manufactured by DePuy, has a higher-than-normal failure rate. Additionally, some plaintiffs have complained that the device has caused metal poisoning, called metallosis, due to high levels of chromium and/or cobalt. Plaintiffs’ lawyers have argued that the Pinnacle hips suffered from design flaws that were ignored by DePuy. As reported by Bloomberg, the federal jury was told that DePuy’s attempts to convince doctors that the metal-on-metal version of its Pinnacle hip implant was safe amounted to “marketing run amok.” The decision reached by the jury in this trial could help determine the outcome of the entire centralized litigation.

If you have had a hip replacement, which used the DePuy Pinnacle device, you can contact Stark & Stark to speak to one of the Mass Tort Attorneys, free of charge, who can help assess any claims that you might have against DePuy.

Pelvic Mesh Manufacturers Lose Preliminary Objections in Pennsylvania

Posted in Transvaginal Mesh

The litigation against manufacturers of pelvic mesh devices continues to increase nationwide. A pelvic mesh implant is a synthetic material implanted and tied to ligaments or bone to lift and support internal organs. The implants were introduced over a decade ago, and can serve as an alternative to a hysterectomy. Thousands of women, who were allegedly uninformed about the dangers involved with the mesh implants, have since complained of injuries, including severe pain, infections and bleeding that often require follow-up surgeries.

Nearly 900 of these pelvic mesh claims are currently pending in the Philadelphia County Court of Common Pleas. Pelvic mesh manufacturers Ethicon, Inc., Boston Scientific, C.R. Bard and American Medical Systems, Inc. filed preliminary objections in the Philadelphia court seeking to dismiss claims lodged against them in that centralized proceeding. The court denied the manufacturers’ application and ruled that the viability of the claims would have to be challenged in each individual case depending on which set of state laws applied. The cases will proceed in Philadelphia and continue to be coordinated with the thousands of cases pending in West Virginia federal court.

If you or a loved one has experienced any injury from the use of a vaginal mesh implant, please contact Stark & Stark and speak to one of the Mass Tort attorneys, free of charge, who can help assess any claims that you might have against a manufacturer of the vaginal mesh device.

AstraZeneca Settles 84 Byetta Lawsuits

Posted in Byetta®, Januvia®/Janumet® and Victoza®

The litigation regarding incretin mimetics, such as Byetta, Januvia/Janumet and Victoza, continues to grow across the country. Byetta (Exenatide), manufactured by Amylin Pharmaceuticals, in association with Eli Lilly and Co., entered the market in 2005 for the treatment of Type 2 diabetes.  Byetta, now sold by Bristol-Myers Squibb and AstraZeneca, is a type of incretin mimetic that is administered as a subcutaneous injection of the abdomen, thigh or arm within 60 minutes of a person’s first and last meal of the day (i.e. two injections a day).

The incretin mimetic litigation is centralized in federal and state courts in California. This consolidation streamlines the pretrial discovery process, allowing the parties to avoid duplicative discovery and inconsistent rulings from different judges across the country. AstraZeneca disclosed in a second quarter financial report that it had resolved 84 Byetta lawsuits for an undisclosed amount of money. The parties continue to move forward in the litigation in hopes of reaching a global settlement. The next Case Management Conference is set for mid-September and will address various issues including the parties’ progress in discovery.

If you or a loved one have suffered from pancreatitis or pancreatic cancer after taking Januvia/Janumet, Byetta or Victoza, you can contact Stark & Stark and speak to one of the Mass Tort/Pharmaceutical Litigation attorneys, free of charge, who can help assess any potential claims.

Alabama Supreme Court Upholds Brand Name Drug Maker Liability for Generics

Posted in News & Events

The Alabama Supreme Court recently decided that a brand name drug maker can be held liable for warnings on a generic medication even if it was produced by another company.

Plaintiffs Danny and Vick Weeks filed a federal lawsuit against five current and former drug makers for injuries allegedly suffered from the long-term use of the prescription drug metoclopramide, which is the generic form of the brand name drug Reglan. The drug is typically used to treat heartburn and nausea. By the time Mr. Weeks had used the medication, drug maker Wyeth no longer controlled the brand name product, which it sold in 2001.

The couple claimed warning labels on the generic medication failed to adequately describe possible hazards, including the potential for involuntary muscle movements, which should have been disclosed to Weeks’ physician. A federal judge hearing the case asked the Alabama Supreme Court to clarify state law on the question of whether the brand name manufacturers could be held responsible for fraud or misrepresentation.

In a 145 page opinion written by Associate Justice Michael Bolin, the Alabama high court said the maker of a brand name drug can be liable for warnings on a generic medication where the maker of the generic drug copied warnings first issued by the brand name manufacturer, a practice permitted by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration. The Alabama court’s recent decision is in the minority, as courts around the country have consistently refused to find brand name liability for generically produced drugs under state law. Plaintiffs’ attorneys across the country are hopeful that this decision will help serve as guidance for other courts that will be asked to decide this issue.

Bard Agrees to Settle 500 Pelvic Mesh Cases

Posted in Medical Devices, News & Events, Transvaginal Mesh

The litigation against manufacturers of pelvic mesh devices continues to increase nationwide. A pelvic mesh implant is a synthetic material implanted and tied to ligaments or bone to lift and support internal organs. The implants were introduced over a decade ago, and can serve as an alternative to a hysterectomy. Thousands of women, who were allegedly uninformed about the dangers involved with the mesh implants, have since complained of injuries, including severe pain, infections and bleeding that often require follow-up surgeries.

As we have previously reported, C.R. Bard, manufacturer of the Avaulta pelvic mesh device, was believed to know of the risks associated with its device before it hit the market. There are approximately 12,500 lawsuits pending against C.R. Bard for the Avaulta device. The majority of these cases are consolidated as part of a federal multidistrict litigation (MDL) before U.S. District Judge Joseph Goodwin in the Southern District of West Virginia.

C.R. Bard has agreed to settle 500 of the pending cases for an undisclosed amount. The manufacturer has reported that it will continue to engage in settlement discussion with the remaining plaintiffs.

If you or a loved one has experienced any injury from the use of a vaginal mesh implant, please contact Stark & Stark and speak to one of the Mass Tort attorneys, free of charge, who can help assess any claims that you might have against a manufacturer of the vaginal mesh device.