The Vaginal Mesh Helpline will keep you updated on all the most recent news. Our vaginal mesh network of lawyers is filing mesh lawsuits on behalf of women with a failed Prolene mesh. The mesh was used for urinary incontinence in 100's of women.

Published on Saturday 15 September 2012 21:02

Botox injections may help women with urinary incontinence, The Daily Telegraph has today reported. The newspaper said that injecting the muscle-freezing toxin into the wall of the bladder can have a long-lasting impact on overactive bladder syndrome, a major cause of incontinence.

The newspaper’s story is based on a UK medical trial that investigated whether the paralysing properties of botox were effective at reducing the symptoms such as frequently using the toilet, feeling an urgent need to urinate, and leakage in patients with overactive bladder syndrome.

The trial featured 240 women who had not responded to medical treatments for overactive balder syndrome. The researchers found that women who received the botox injection experienced these symptoms significantly less frequently than women who received a dummy injection of saltwater. However, women given botox were more likely to get urinary tract infections.

The results of the study indicate that botox may be effective in treating a common and upsetting health condition. However, if it does get adopted into use in this way there are several other treatment options (including lifestyle measures, bladder training exercises and medication that would be considered first. Botox may be considered as an option only if these treatments fail, and the benefits would have to be considered in relation to its potential harms.

Where did the story come from?

The study was carried out by researchers from the University of Leicester and was funded by the Moulton Charitable Trust and the women’s health charity Wellbeing of Women.

The study was published in the peer-reviewed medical journal European Urology.

The Telegraph covered this study appropriately, covering the study size and design, as well as the treatment benefits and harms.

What kind of research was this?

While it is hard to gauge the true scale of the problem, research suggests that around 13% of women in the UK may have some form of urinary incontinence. Although many conditions and factors can cause urinary incontinence, one major cause is overactive bladder syndrome. The condition is marked by uncontrolled contraction of the bladder that results in an urgent need to pass urine. While this can lead women to need the toilet frequently, some also experience a form of leakage called urge incontinence.

An overactive bladder can be a cause of urge incontinence, which is when urine leaks at the same time or just after you feel an intense urge to pass urine. Urge incontinence differs from stress incontinence, where the pelvic floor muscles are too weak to prevent urination. This causes urine to leak when your bladder is placed under pressure from actions such as coughing or laughing.

This was a placebo-controlled randomised controlled trial that examined the effectiveness and safety of using botulinum toxin (botox) as a treatment for overactive bladder syndrome. A randomised controlled trial is the best way to measure the effectiveness of a treatment, as the randomisation process helps to ensure that any patient characteristics that may influence the outcome have an equal chance of appearing in either treatment group. This allows researchers to be confident that any observed effect is due to the treatment under study.

What did the research involve?

The researchers enrolled 240 women with bladder muscle overactivity, or overactive bladder syndrome, that had not responded to previous treatment. The women were randomly allocated injections of either Botulinum toxin A (botox) or placebo (saltwater) into the wall of the bladder. Women with another common type of incontinence, stress incontinence, were not included in the study.

The participants kept a diary over three days, recording the number of times they:

    emptied their bladder
    felt an urgent need to empty their bladder
    experienced an unintentional passing of urine (or leakage)

The women also completed a questionnaire that assessed their quality of life, as overactive bladder syndrome often has a significant negative impact on patient quality of life.

The researchers conducted follow-up sessions with the women on average at six weeks, three months and six months after treatment. They assessed differences in the frequency of the above three symptoms between the two treatment groups. They also compared quality of life scores, treatment complications and time until troubling symptoms returned between the two groups.

The researchers used appropriate statistical methods to assess differences in frequency of symptoms between the two groups.

What were the basic results?

There were 122 women allocated to the botox treatment group and 118 women allocated to the placebo group.

The researchers compared the outcomes in the botox and placebo groups at the six-month follow-up. They found that in any 24-hour period women in the botox group:

    emptied their bladders less often: 8.33 times versus 9.67 times, a difference of 1.34 (95% confidence interval [CI] 1.00 to 2.33, p=0.0001)
    experienced fewer leakage episodes: 1.67 versus 6.00, a difference of 4.33 episodes (95% CI 3.33 to 5.67, p<0.0001)
    experienced fewer episodes of urgency to urinate: 3.83 versus 6.33, a difference of 2.50 episodes (95% CI 1.33 to 3.33, p<0.0001)

Almost a one-third of women in the botox group (31.3%) developed bladder control (or continence) following their treatment, compared to 12.0% in the placebo group (Odds Ratio [OR] 3.12, 95% CI 1.49 to 6.52, p=0.002).

However, urinary tract infection was reported at least once during six months by a one-third of women in the botox treatment group, compared to 10% in the placebo group (OR 3.68, 95% CI 1.72 to 8.25, p=0.0003).

Those given botox also reported greater difficulty emptying their bladders, which required self-catheterisation to remove their urine: 16% of the botox group compared to 4% of the placebo group (OR 4.87, 95% CI 1.52 to 20.33, p=0.003).

How did the researchers interpret the results?

The researchers concluded that injections of botulinum toxin A into the bladder wall is an effective and safe treatment for overactive bladder syndrome in women who have not responded to previous treatment.

Conclusion

Urinary incontinence can be a distressing and problematic condition, and although we cannot be sure of the number of people affected, research suggests it is surprisingly common.

While there is a range of potential treatments and ways to manage urinary incontinence (including medication, bladder training, lifestyle changes and surgery) not all people respond to them, and they can have problems. This randomised controlled trial provided good evidence that botox injections may be a useful treatment option for women with incontinence due to overactive bladder syndrome that has proven difficult to treat with other methods.

The researchers say that the relief of symptoms reported by the participants was considerably better than those who used oral anticholinergic drugs. These drugs act on the nerve supply to the bladder and are the standard medical treatment used for this condition. They add that other randomised controlled trials have reported similar effects.

The researchers say that since they designed their trial, other studies have published results that support using a lower recommended dose of botox for this type of treatment. Therefore, it is unclear if the same results would be found at this reduced dose. They also say that their study recruited participants with severe cases of overactive bladder syndrome, and that it is unclear if the treatment would be as effective in less severe cases.

It is important to note that the study participants did not have stress incontinence, which is a common cause of urinary incontinence. Therefore, the results of this study cannot be generalised to all women with symptoms of overactive bladder or incontinence, but can only be applied to those with diagnosed overactive bladder syndrome (or detrusor overactivity).

Botox is not routinely used by the NHS in this way, but if it were then it would probably be considered as an option only among women who have required specialist referral for their condition. This would be given after they had tried other treatment options first, which may include lifestyle measures and bladder training exercises in addition to oral medications. If these treatments fail, the benefits of botox would have to be considered in relation to its potential harms.

Vaginal Mesh Helpline reports that  a women has finally had enough and protests the vaginal mesh. The Vaginal Mesh Helpline and vaginal mesh lawyers applaud. Perhaps this will become a trend and we will begin to see protests thru-out the country. and is being offered to our readers.
The Vaginal Mesh Helpline is gearing up for what they feel is a second round outreach to some of the largest cities in the United States. "We expect a new wave of T.V ads by lawyers after the election and we are ready."" Women see lawyer ads on T.V and they have alot of questions".Says the helpline medical social worker."They want to speak to someone they feel safe and comfortable with and they call us".

The vaginal mesh lawsuit proceedings have begun" We want all women covered and we want them to get medical and legal help", the helpline representatives tell us. "We have the staff and capacity to help women by offering support and guidance"."They just feel more comfortable with a  social worker then a law firm"

The outreach is a massive undertaking for the Vaginal Mesh Helpline. Their mission is clear and they are ready. They expect to be adding 5-10 new cities a week until they have the major cities in the U.S covered.  The helpline is seeking all women who have not filed their vaginal mesh lawsuit "to stand up and seek justice"

The first round Vaginal Mesh Outreach projected reach the following cities to be:

New York, N.Y.,
Los Angeles, Calif., http://www.vaginalmeshhelpline.com
Chicago, Ill.,
Houston, Tex.,
Philadelphia, Pa,.
Phoenix, Ariz,.
San Antonio, Tex.,
San Diego, Calif.,
Dallas, Tex.,
San Jose, Calif.,

Second vaginal mesh Outreach Campaign

Jacksonville, Fla., http://www.vaginalmeshhelpline.com
Indianapolis, Ind.,
San Francisco, Calif.,
Austin, Tex., http://www.vaginalmeshhelpline.com
Columbus, Ohio,
Fort Worth, Tex.,
Charlotte, N.C.,
Detroit, Mich.,
El Paso, Tex.,
Memphis, Tenn.,

Third round of Vaginal Mesh Outreach

Baltimore, Md.,
Boston, Mass.,
Seattle, Wash.,
Washington, DC,
Nashville,
Denver, Colo.,
Louisville,
Milwaukee, Wis.,
Portland, Ore.,
Las Vegas, Nev.,

Additional Vaginal Mesh Lawsuits Outreach

Oklahoma City, Okla,
Albuquerque, N.M.,
Tucson, Ariz.,
Fresno, Calif.,
Sacramento, Calif.,
Long Beach, Calif.,
Kansas City, Mo.,
Mesa, Ariz.,
Virginia Beach, Va.,
Atlanta, Ga.,
Colorado Springs, Colo.,
Omaha, Nebr.,
Raleigh, N.C.,
Miami, Fla.,
Cleveland, Ohio,
Tulsa, Okla.,
Oakland, Calif,.
Minneapolis, Minn.,
Wichita, Kans.,
Arlington,,

The Vaginal Mesh Helpline is always keeping women updated on new related vaginal mesh news, medical information and vaginal mesh lawsuits. We just found this article and are sharing it with our followers.

Botox Approved, Again, This Time for Urinary Incontinence
By Meredith Melnick | @meredithcm | August 26, 2011 | 54For those of you who have been keeping track, Botox, the symbol of vanity and Bravo’s Real Housewives, actually has a variety of medical uses: it’s government-approved to treat chronic migraines, muscle problems, underarm sweating and a number of other conditions. Now add to that, urinary incontinence.

On Wednesday, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approved Botox, or botulinum toxin, to treat incontinence in patients with neurological conditions like spinal cord injury and multiple sclerosis. It’s the seventh condition that Botox has been approved to treat since the drug first arrived on the market as a wrinkle reducer in 2002.

How does it treat urinary incontinence? In some patients with neurological conditions, overactivity in the bladder leads to an inability to store urine. By injecting Botox directly into the bladder to relax it, patients are offered for more muscle control and less incontinence.

In two clinical trials involving 691 patients with incontinence due to spinal cord injury or multiple sclerosis, those who got Botox had a significant reduction in weekly incontinence episodes, compared to a placebo group, the FDA said. The most common adverse effects were urinary tract infection and urinary retention.

Given that incontinence is so difficult to manage — typically involving drugs to relax the bladder and the use of a catheter to empty it — Botox may give some patients another option. One injection may help control incontinence for up to 10 months, the FDA said.

The approval also opens the door to yet more uses for Botox, made by Allergan, the New York Times reported:

    The drug has been studied for more than 100 medical conditions in all, according to Caroline Van Hove, company spokeswoman. “Anything from writer’s cramp to anal fissure to Parkinson’s disease. That’s why we say it’s a pipeline in a vial,” she said Wednesday.

Botox sales reached about $1.5 billion worldwide in 2010, roughly split between cosmetic and therapeutic purposes.

Perhaps this is something that can help after mesh removal. Our vaginal mesh lawyers are currently filing vaginal mesh lawsuits.

It seems like every lawyer in the United States is after a woman with a mesh. This is the hottest thing since the Slilcone Breast Implants and most likely bigger and more far reaching. Over 300,000 women in the United States have mesh implants. We speak to women of all ages. My oldest mesh caller  was 86 and my youngest was 28. The mesh  is being surgically implanted  for very simple SUI in young women after child birth. Women are ging in for a hysterectmy and coming out with a mesh. Doctors have been putting them in after the 2008 warning and are still using them today. The vaginal mesh comes under many different names and is marketed by about fifteen manufacturers. A bladder sling is a mesh and many rectoceles ad cystoceles are done with a mesh. Many women have more then one mesh. Some women still do not understand they have a mesh. They have complications and their doctors are sending them home telling them nothing is wrong. There is no shortage of vaginal mesh lawyer T.V ads, mesh email blasts, text message blasts and even direct solicitation. You have a $ sign plastered to your forehead and the pain and suffering can only be understood amongst a sisterhood of mesh sufferers. How do you choose a lawyer? They all sound so good. First, you must be sure they are not referring your case to another law firm. Any and all lawyers will take a mesh case. They will very rarely turn you away. Some may refuse your case for reasons you do not understand after they rushed you to send the packet back. You may call trying to find out what is going on and the response is less then comforting. Do not be alarmed if you get a rejection letter. That may be only one law firms opinion. Some lawyers are just accepting the easy cases. These would be  if the mesh has been removed. This is not always a correct decision since you need to find a doctor who is willing to remove it. This is not the easiest task. The doctor who put it in is most likely not going to be very helplful.

Some Basic Facts

There are leads companies out there sending email blasts and trying to get you to sign with them, They are not lawyers and will be selling you to a lawyer as middlemen. You must use caution.

We can help you in:

The mesh lawsuits are not class action litigations. They are what are known as multi-district litigations. You do not need a local lawyer. What you do need is an experienced lawyer with a history of helping women with prior drug or medical device litigations. You need a law firm with  concerned staff who have answers to the questions you ask.  The Vaginal Mesh Helpline only accepts law firms who have a designated female who knows everything there is to know about the mesh. This could be a female attorney or a mature woman who understands.

We only work with law firms who are experienced mass tort litgators. They must have prior experience with a dangerous drug or device that has become an MDL and has harmed women. All law firms go thru a vigorous interview process. We do not accept all of them. The doctors on our list come from our callers who have had a positive experience with them.

We are proud to have amongst our lawyer network two law firms that were involved in helping women with the silicone breast implant litigations. One of those firms is still helping woman in 2012.  The other was a lead counsel. Some women are still waiting for settlements on these disease claims today. This can give you a sense of  how long it takes and how lives can be turned around when a manufacturer puts profits over people.

Competition For Mesh Clients is Out of Control

Lawyers are after the women who have been injured by the mesh. The internet is over run and the T.V screen filled with vaginal mesh lawyer ads. You must take legal action but, you also need medical help and support. Most law firms will not help you get a doctor.

Call the Vaginal Mesh Helpline and speak to a female medical social worker. Get  support, medical help and legal help. You are not alone.  Read the comments from other mesh victims on this site. You must file a vaginal mesh lawsuit and that must be done quickly, The statute of limitations is running out in many states. For more information call our helpline today.

The Vaginal Mesh has been destroying marriages across the country. The pain and agony has made intimacy a distant memory. Many marriages are disolving because of it. However, many husbands are suing along with their wives for lack or loss of consortium.

What is Loss of Consortium?

According to Wikepedia:

Loss of consortium
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia "Loss of consortium is a term used in the law of torts that refers to the deprivation of the benefits of a family relationship due to injuries caused by a tortfeasor. Loss of consortium arising from personal injuries was recognized under the English common law. For example in Baker v Bolton, (1808) 1 Camp 493, a man was permitted to recover for his loss of consortium while his wife languished after a carriage accident. However, once she died from her injuries, his right to recover for lost consortium ended. After the enactment of the Lord Campbell's Act (9 and 10 Vic. c. 93) the English common law continued to prohibit recovery for loss of consortium resulting from the death of a victim. The availability of loss of consortium differs drastically among common law jurisdictions and does not exist at all in several of them. Damages for loss of consortium are considered separately from, and are not to be confused with compensatory damages.

The action was originally paired in a Latin expression: "per quod servitium et consortium amisit," translated as "in consequence of which he lost her society and services." The relationship between husband and wife has, historically, been considered worthy of legal protection. The interest being protected under consortium, is that which the head of the household (father or husband) had in the physical integrity of his wife, children, or servants. The undertone of this action is that the husband had an unreciprocated proprietary interest in his wife. The deprivations identified include the economic contributions of the injured spouse to the household, care and affection, and sex. The action originated in the 18th century and was once available to a father against a man who was courting his daughter outside of marriage, on the grounds that the father had lost the consortium of his daughter's household services because she was spending time with her beau.

Loss of consortium has been brought into the law as a cause of action by civil codes, for example, in Maine[1] or into the common law by action of justices. Other jurisdictions view loss of consortium as an element of damages, not as an independent cause of action; in which case the claim must be brought under another tort. As an example, in suits brought under Washington State’s wrongful death statute, loss of consortium is an element of damages [2]. While some jurisdictions only recognize spousal consortium (usually considered as sex) others recognize parental consortium (love and affection) as well allowing children to recover for the death or disability of a parent and vice versa."

Below are a number of news bulletins where husbands have sued the manufacturers of the vaginal mesh products.

 A Woman and Her Husband Sue Multiple Manufacturers For Her Vaginal Mesh Problems
Perry Larkin | July 25th, 2012 | Posted in Vaginal Mesh Lawsuits

According to the complaint drawn up by an Alabama woman and her husband’s vaginal mesh lawyer, she was implanted with products manufactured by Johnson & Johnson (J&J) and Ethicon, Inc. on February 6, 2008. She was later implanted with a product manufactured by Boston Scientific Corporation on November 8, 2010.

In the recent landmark case A jury awarded Scott $5 million and her husband $500,000, claiming the mesh has ruined their love life. It's a landmark victory, the first of its kind in the country.

If you are experiencing severe complications from a vaginal mesh and you and your husband are both suffering as a result of this, You both may be able to sue for damages. Husbands can sue for loss of consortium.

The Vaginal Mesh Helpline continues to report on the news that effects women with vaginal mesh complications. The new FDA tracking system comes a little late for the over 300,000 women implanted with vaginal mesh devices and suffering. However, there is hope. This sends a message that our voices have been heard. By filing vaginal mesh lawsuits and standing up for justice you protect yourself and all women from becoming targets of manufacturers who put profits over people.

FDA’s Propose Tracking System Could Reduce Vaginal Mesh Complications
Tracy Ray

The FDA has proposed a new regulation that would require all new medical devices to carry a unique device identifier (UDI). The UDI would be a code of letters and numbers. Such a code would make it much easier to track devices, which in turn would make it much easier to report complications with a particular model or to find out about such problems.

According to the FDA, “A UDI system has the potential to improve the quality of information in medical device adverse event reports, which will help the FDA identify product problems more quickly, better target recalls and improve patient safety.”

For example, if such a tracking system were in place, a doctor who had a patient with stress urinary incontinence (SUI) or pelvic organ prolapse (POP) and wanted to implant a vaginal mesh device could look up the different models by the UDI and immediately see what transvaginal mesh complications, if any, had been reported with each specific model. Likewise, in the event of a recall, a UDI would make the process much more efficient: the company or the FDA would simply announce that the model carrying a particular UDI number was being recalled.

The FDA’s proposal was a response to legislation passed by Congress in 2007 that directed the FDA to develop regulations establishing a unique device identification system for medical devices.
Many women have suffered transvaginal mesh complications

Such a system might enable future patients to avoid problems resulting from transvaginal mesh. Many women have suffered such complications, including pain, infections, mesh erosion, protrusion, vaginal scarring, dyspareunia, and perforation of the bowels, bladder, or blood vessels. Many of these devices were approved under the FDA’s controversial 510(k) approval process, which allows products to be approved without first undergoing clinical trials to prove they are safe.

If the physicians treating these women had been able to easily look up the type of vaginal mesh device they were considering implanting, and immediately see reports of problems associated with the device, they would have been able to weight the risks and make an informed decision about whether to implant that particular device.
Vaginal mesh MDL consolidated lawsuits

Many women who have suffered complications have filed vaginal mesh lawsuits in order to get compensation for their pain, suffering, and reduced quality of life. Most of these lawsuits charge that the manufacturers of these devices did not test them for safety before putting the on the market and failed to warn the public of the devices’ risks. A number of federal lawsuits have been consolidated in a vaginal mesh MDL in West Virginia.

For help call the Vaginal Mesh Helpline and Vaginal Mesh Support Group today, Let us help you find and vaginal mesh lawyer and doctor.

Vaginal Mesh Helpline  is provideng vaginal mesh support and Avaulta mesh lawyers for women with complications from the Bard Avaulta Vaginall Mesh. Like all mesh implants  the Bard Avaulta Vaginal Mesh was used for prolapse or unrinary incontinence and is causing all the classic mesh complications.

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
 

Complications with Bard Avaulta Vaginal Mesh Include:

•     Severe physical pain
•     erosion of the mesh
•     pain during sexual intercourse
•     Difficulty voiding
•     patch bleeding
•     lower back pain
•     Reoccurrence of POP or SUI
•     Severe infection
•     Urinary  related problems

Bard Avaulta Mesh Lawyers are filing lawsuits for women with complications from the Bard Avaulta Vaginal mesh.
 
If you have complications from a Bard Avaulta vaginal mesh do not wait because the first Bellwether trial is  scheduled in the Bard Avaulta Mesh Implant MDL

The trial is now set to begin on February 5, 2013 in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of West Virginia.

The purpose of bellwether trials is for both parties to get an idea of how juries will respond to common evidence in representative trials. They can then use this information to negotiate settlements, to plan their strategy for future trials, or to serve as precedents. In January, Judge Goodwin told the attorneys in the Bard MDL to compile a list of possible bellwether cases. Now that a date has been set for the first bellwether trial, a schedule will be established for the discovery process so that the pre-trial proceedings can begin.

You must retain an experienced multi district litigation lawyer immediately. Call the Bard Avaulta vaginal mesh helpline today.

Use of Vaginal Sling During Surgery Linked to Increased Urethral Sling Complications 1 877 522-2123

Vaginal Mesh Helpline Medical  Update reports on a June 21, 2012 study published in The New England Journal of Medicine, which found that though the insertion of a vaginal sling during surgery decreases the chances of postoperative urinary incontinence, it carries higher risks of urethral sling complications.*

The study analyzed data from 337 participants who underwent surgery to treat pelvic organ prolapse (“POP”) between May 2007 and October 2009. The women were randomly assigned either a vaginal sling or sham incisions. The study found:

        After three months, 23.6 percent of women with the sling had urinary incontinence, compared to 49.4 percent without a vaginal sling.

        After 12 months, 27.3 percent of patients with the sling suffered from urinary incontinence, compared to 43 percent of those without.

        Those implanted with the sling suffered complications. Nearly seven percent of the sling group suffered bladder perforation, versus none in the control group.

        31 percent of women experienced urinary tract infections as a urethral sling complication, versus 18.3 percent in the non-sling group.

        Bleeding complications occurred in 3.1 percent of the sling group; incomplete bladder emptying occurred in 3.7 percent of the sling group. Neither occurred at all in the non-sling group.

Urethral Sling Complications Adds To Concerns About Vaginal Mesh Side Effects

According to an accompany commentary to the study, vaginal mesh slings are different from other types of transvaginal mesh used for POP repair. The slings are small and shaped like straps, approximately 1 cm wide and 10 cm long, while vaginal mesh sheets can span up to 10 cm wide and 20 cm long. In September 2011, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (“FDA”) convened a panel to evaluate the safety of vaginal mesh implants. Although the agency recommended post market studies for transvaginal mesh, they did not require such studies for midurethral slings. The latest study raises questions about the risks and benefits of vaginal mesh slings. The FDA noted that the vaginal sling provides an “anatomic” benefit, but may not result in better symptomatic results. Since the study was limited to a one year follow up, the long-term consequences of urethral sling complications are still unknown.

Current vaginal mesh lawsuits are increasing. There are numerous vaginal mesh related implants creating severe complications. Many women do not realize that all of these are mesh devices and are part of the huge vaginal mesh lawsuits. The Vaginal mesh helpline currently has a number of pre screened experienced Tort lawyers  for women seeking to file vaginal mesh lawsuits. We cxan also help with doctors in some states.

You have been probably reading alot lately about the mesh and the fact that it is a Multi District litigation. In fact that is what this lawsuit is. The vaginal mesh is not a class action lawsuit. Your case is filed locally and then moved to the appropriate MDl  that the manufacturer of your vaginal mesh has been assigned to.

What is a MUlti District litigation ?

Multidistrict litigation is a procedure utilized in the federal court system to transfer to one federal judge all pending civil cases of a similar type filed throughout the United States. The decision whether cases should be transferred is made by a panel of seven federal judges appointed by the Chief Justice of the United States Supreme Court. The Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation meets periodically to review requests that cases be consolidated for pretrial matters pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1407

Vaginal mesh MDL'S

In December 2008, all Mentor ObTape lawsuits pending in federal courts were consolidated for MDL in the United States District Court for the Middle District of Georgia, before the Honorable Judge Clay D. Land. In October 2010, 36 lawsuits against Bard (manufacturer of one brand of vaginal mesh) were consolidated for MDL in the Southern District of West Virginia; the number of included cases has since grown to nearly 300. The first vaginal mesh bellwether trial against Bard is scheduled to begin on February 15, 2013. Later, in February 2012, the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation created three additional MDLs in the Southern District of West Virginia; the defendants are: American Medical Systems; Boston Scientific; and Ethicon. Also in October 2010, Judge Carol E. Higbee of the Superior Court of New Jersey ruled in favor of centralized management for all current and future complaints against manufacturers Johnson &Johnson and Bard (more than 400 such cases have currently been filed). The New Jersey cases are not part of a federal MDL, but are being managed on a state level.

A motion has been filed to create a sixth transvaginal mesh MDL, involving lawsuits over Coloplast pelvic mesh, and a panel of federal judges will meet later this month to consider whether the cases should be consolidated for pretrial proceedings and centralized before the same judge in West Virginia who is presiding over cases involving similar products sold by other manufacturers.

To Summarize the vaginal mesh MDL

There are currently four different MDLs (multidistrict litigations) centralized before Chief District Judge Joseph R. Goodwin in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of West Virginia, involving lawsuits over transvaginal mesh products sold by C.R. Bard, American Medical Systems (AMS), Boston Scientific and Ethicon.

A fifth MDL, which was established in 2004 for lawsuits involving Mentor ObTape, is centralized in the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Georgia. However, many of the Mentor ObTape lawsuits have already settled and the litigation is at a very advanced stage.

Update on Vaginal Mesh Proceedings

Judge Issues Order to Proceed with Discovery in Vaginal Mesh MDL
Emma Gonzalez | July 6th, 2012 |

On June 14, 2012, Chief District Judge Joseph R. Goodwin, who presides over the U.S. District Court for the Western District of West Virginia, issued a pretrial order to proceed with discovery processes in the transvaginal mesh lawsuit MDL. In laymen’s terms, this means that lawyers for the plaintiffs, who allege a variety of vaginal mesh problems, are now able to request evidence, documentation and other paperwork from product manufactures and defendant companies.
Discovery to seek evidence of vaginal mesh problems

True to name, discovery is a legal term for the pretrial process of “discovering” evidence from the opposing party. In this case, Judge Goodwin has authorized vaginal mesh attorneys to seek depositions, interrogatories (fact-gathering questionnaires), and other supporting documentation from vaginal mesh manufacturers and other named defendants. Judge Goodwin’s order is a very important step for the MDL, as it allows counsel to prepare for the first trials.
Judge presides over four transvaginal mesh lawsuit MDL’s

Judge Goodwin will preside over several transvaginal mesh lawsuit MDL’s – those against American Medical Systems, Boston Scientific, C.R. Bard, and Ethicon. While Judge Goodwin has been assigned to the C.R. Bard MDL since 2010, it was not until 2012 that the other three were consolidated and appended to his court docket. The four MDL’s consolidate cases from thousands of women, and currently number 333 against AMS, 182 against Boston Scientific, 411 against C.R. Bard, and 253 against Ethicon. MDL numbers are growing fast, and this rapid rate is not expected to decrease in the near future.
Vaginal mesh attorneys cite range of complications

MDL plaintiffs allege several vaginal mesh problems, among them pelvic organ prolapse and stress urinary incontinence aggravated by vaginal mesh. Additionally, women report chronic infection, bleeding, vaginal scarring, severe discomfort, and pain during intercourse. For some, what was meant to be a solution to their problems results in device erosion – deterioration of the implant – or extrusion, in other words, dislocation of the implant to such a point that it protrudes into the vaginal canal. In the worst of cases, women allege that their defective implants cannot be completely removed, even after multiple surgeries.

It is important to understand that a local lawyer is not necessary for the Vaginal mesh lawsuits. That lawyer will not necessarily be a part of the proceedings but, will most likely be seniding your case to another law firm that is equipped to handle mass torts.

Lead Counsels and the vaginal mesh MDL

On April 13th, Chief Judge Joseph R. Goodwin held a hearing to consider what MDL attorneys will be appointed to serve as lead counsel for the plaintiffs in the consolidated transvaginal mesh litigation.  Attiorneys from around the country comprise the Executive Committee and fifty firms comprise the PSC.

That is why it is extremely important for you to hire an end of the line lawyer so that your casr is not moved from a local law firm to a larger law firm to the MDL lead counsel. Many lead counsels are just end of the libne lawyers and are not taking cases, others are. Your attorney must be familiar with the MDL process. for the Vaginal mesh Helpline dial 1 877 522-2123

Gynecare mesh lawyers are filing Gynecare mesh Lawsuits for women with complications from the J & J Gynecare mesh, If you have not heard Johnson and Johnson has just pulled four of the Gynecare brands off the market and announced a lable change for the fifth. The new labeling prohibits implantation thru the vagina and allows abdominal implantation only. Now, they are not calling this a recall but, it is a definite statement as to the pronlems with the mesh,

We have had reports from many women with Gynecare Mesh complications.

Uses for Gynecare Mesh
Pelvic Organ Prolapse has been one of the key rationals doctors have used for mesh implantation

Complications

• Gynecare Mesh Erosion
• Uncreased Urinary Incontinence
• Or problems voiding
• Inability to have sexual intercourse
• Gynecare Mesh Infection
• Puncture of the bladder, intestines or bowels
• Severe bleeding
• Pain (constant or during intercourse)
• Constant Infection
• Vaginal scarring or shrinkage
• Urinary issues
• Return of  Pelvic organ Prolapse

Gynecare Mesh lawyers are filing lawsuits for Gynecare Mesh

Manufacturer: Ethicon
Product: Gynemesh PS (K013718) a/k/a/ Prolift Pelvic Floor, Prolene Polypropylene Mesh

Manufacturer: Gynecare
Product: Secur, Tension Free Vaginal Tape

Manufacturer: Johnson & Johnson
Product: K974098

June 4th, 2012
Ethicon, Inc., a unit of Johnson & Johnson and the manufacturer of several widely-used transvaginal mesh products, including the Gynecare TVT Secur System and Gynecare Prolift Pelvic Floor Repair System, announced today that it is taking these products off the market.

Women should be aware that there are many mesh implants and Gynecare is only one causing horrific complications.  The MDL Multi District lawsuits for Gynecare are  currently being consolidated in West Virginia.