SAN FRANCISCO — The California Supreme Court refused to hear a major transvaginal mesh maker’s appeal regarding one of the first major transvaginal mesh verdicts.
The California Supreme Court rejected C.R. Bard’s petition to appeal the first transvaginal mesh verdict set down in the state. In 2012 a California jury awarded Christine Scott $5.5 million for the injuries she suffered from the company’s Avaulta Plus vaginal implant.
Landmark Transvaginal Mesh Case
In one of the first transvaginal mesh cases to go to trial, C.R. Bard was negligent in the handling of their transvaginal mesh devices and negligent in using the device to treat pelvic organ prolapse, organ bulge, and incontinence. The company’s failure to properly test the Avaulta Plus line prior to putting it on the market was the focus of the jury’s ire. Furthermore, the court found that C.R. Bard’s company officials knew or should have known that performing pelvic-floor repair (i.e. the most common surgery involving transvaginal mesh) would not have realized all of the potential risks involved in using the mesh. What this means is that the court believed C.R. Bard should not have stopped testing the product at that point and should have continued testing to ensure the device did not have health risks after it had been implanted for some time. The jury ended up finding C.R. Bard was 60 percent at fault and Scott’s doctor who implanted the device was at fault for the remainder of her injuries. The overall verdict was $5 million in damages to Scott and an additional $500,000 to her husband Roy.
What is Transvaginal Mesh?
Transvaginal mesh is a synthetic netting used by doctors to bolster the muscles in the pelvic region. Women have it implanted in order to treat incontinence and pelvic organ prolapse (a condition in which the muscles of the pelvis region to the point the neighboring organs fall out of place). The device, however, has been found to cause thousands of women serious health problems due to the mesh eroding or breaking off into pieces. The result is organ perforation, internal scarring, infection, incontinence, sexual problems, and organ prolapse. The only real treatment is to remove the implant and treat the resulting complications individually.
As have all of the major manufacturers of transvaginal mesh, C.R. Bard denies all of the allegations in its transvaginal mesh cases. Its appeal and subsequent defeat in the California Supreme Court is encouraging for victims of the medical device.
The Transvaginal Mesh No Fee Promise
If you or a loved one has been harmed by transvaginal mesh, you may have a claim against the manufacturer. Our award winning attorneys specialize in filing lawsuits for people who have been wronged by serious side-effects of prescription medications and defective medical devices. We operate under our No Fee Promise, which means you will not pay a dime until your case has been accepted and you receive your settlement. We will put it in writing for you.
To get started on your case, simply call our offices any time of the day at (866) 280-4722 or fill out the Free Case Review Form on the side of this page. We will listen to your story, explain what rights you have, and determine if you have a potential lawsuit against the device manufacturer. Remember, there are strict time deadlines to filing defective drug and device claims and if you do not act quickly your claim will be lost forever.