#C-Qur Mesh

[lgrlawfirm]

New Mesh Lawsuits Involve Hernia Mesh Complications

Many Americans have heard about transvaginal mesh implant kits (slings) that resulted in million dollar multi-district class action lawsuits for the pain and suffering caused to the women who had surgery to correct pelvic organ prolapse (POP) and stress urinary incontinence (SUI). Vaginal mesh manufacturers face tens of thousands of federal lawsuits with thousands more pending in state courts.

It now appears another medical device with troubling side effects, the C-Qur mesh, manufactured by Atrium Medical is being removed from the market. This story has not received a lot of attention and it may never get the kind of attention that the transvaginal mesh kits did. “And here is why,” explained Austin transvaginal mesh attorney Bobby Lee. “It appears the company may have initiated a ‘stealth’ recall of certain products due to allegations that C-Qur mesh increased the risks of hernia mesh complications.”

A stealth recall means a company ceases to make a certain product due to it being linked to adverse events, but does not necessarily tell the public or doctors about the move.

An Arkansas woman filed a lawsuit alleging the stealth recall. The lawsuit claims that she had a hernia repair five years ago in which the C-Qur mesh was used. Two years later, the woman began experiencing severe stomach pain and her hernia returned. This resulted in surgery to remove the C-Qur mesh. Surgeons found the mesh had crumpled inside her body and caused scarring making it impossible to replace the mesh. The woman’s hernia returned, necessitating yet another surgery — a procedure she has been unable to heal from.

According to the lawsuit she filed, Atrium Medical used an Omega 3 fish oil gel coating on the mesh, causing her body to reject it after the coating separated from the mesh. This lawsuit is not the first of its kind. There have been other patients with C-Qur implants alleging similar reactions. The suit alleges the company knew or should have known about the likelihood of mesh rejection, pain and other adverse side effects resulting from product.

More lawsuits a likely to follow  until medical device manufacturers find a way to reduce or avoid the body’s response to their products.

[alusdruglawsuit]

What You Should Do before You Lodge a Hernia Mesh Claim

There is still an increased number of hernia mesh claims being brought against specific manufacturers in the United States even with advances in technology. This is primarily due to the complications and side effects that have arisen, even after medical practitioners categorized them as swift operations that only need limited time to recover. If you had surgery to implant a hernia mesh and have experienced painful and challenging complications, these are six things you need to be aware of before filing a hernia mesh suit.

Figure Out Which Hernia Mesh Implant You Have

Prior to proceeding with a hernia mesh case, the most critical initial step is to request your surgeon or hospital to assist you in determining which hernia mesh brand or medical device was used as your implant. Currently, legal actions are only being pursued against a few hernia mesh producers. Therefore, before deciding to lodge your claim, first find out the specific manufacturer of your implant.

C-QUR by Atrium and Physiomesh by Ethicon are two of the most popular implants. Physiomesh was withdrawn from the market in 2016 after revelations that it led to a huge percentage of corrective surgeries. C-QUR was manufactured using an Omega-3 covering, originally created to assist in reducing inflammation. However, many patients have faced extreme allergic reactions.

If you desire to take action and receive a judgment or award due to a faulty or a harmful hernia mesh, it’s important that you fully ascertain the mesh type that was utilized. If you’re doubtful on the exact type of hernia mesh utilized, reach out to your doctor or medical facility as they have those details on record.

Have You Experienced Any Of The Following Complications?

It’s crucial to be aware of the various complications that can occur and if you have had any of them before lodging a hernia mesh case. In case you have an implant but haven’t suffered from any of the complications highlighted below, the chances that your lawsuit will fail are very high.

Admission to hospital for treatment

Hernia recurrence

Corrective surgery/Revision

Extreme Infections

Erosion

Severe pain

Perforation of other organs

Mesh rejection or migration to other organs

Inflammation

Autoimmune reactions (flu-like symptoms) to the implant

A chronic wound that does not heal

Dental issues

Mesh sticking to intestines (adhesion)

Obstruction/Blockage of intestines or bowel

Mesh shrinkage

Abnormal connection between organs

Bleeding and Pain

Damage to nerves

If you have experienced any of the above complications or symptoms, you are eligible for a hernia mesh claim. Call us today.

Related Link https://usdruglawsuit.com/has-your-hernia-mesh-been-recalled/

[abuselawyerca]

Hurt from Atrium C-Qur hernia mesh? Now filing lawsuits against Atrium Medical, large cash awards from claims and settlements for this hernia mesh. Attorneys ready to file.

[davidslepkow]

A recent report from the federal judicial system has revealed that the number of lawsuits related to three of the major brands of hernia mesh is on the rise. Each of these multidistrict litigations has grown substantially bigger with more lawsuits expected to be filed in the coming months. The complications associated with this medical device has caused patients to need follow-up surgeries, often resulting in long-term health effects. Anyone who has had one of these meshes implanted as part of their hernia surgery and has experienced any complications should speak with a hernia mesh lawsuit attorney to learn of their legal rights.

MULTIDISTRICT HERNIA MESH LITIGATION

There are currently three major multidistrict litigations ongoing that are related to hernia surgeries. They are:

Bard Hernia mesh lawsuits in the Southern District of Ohio (2,478 total cases as of July 2019)

Ethicon Physiomesh lawsuits in the District Court for the Northern District of Georgia (2,167 total cases)

Atrium C-Qur in federal court in New Hampshire (1,403 total cases)

There is also a consolidated State Court lawsuit against Bard Davol pending in Rhode Island, Providence Superior Court. (over 1000 lawsuits)

Multidistrict litigation

Multidistrict litigation is a series of related cases that do not meet the requirements of a class action action. However, there are still some efficiencies for the courts and for the parties to the lawsuits if there are some common elements of the case in the judicial system.  In an MDL each victim has their own  hernia mesh lawyer  and is not required to accept any proposed settlement. The victim can reject a mesh settlement and pursue their own individual trial.  In an MDL, the cases are typically consolidated for discovery, settlement and pretrial motions.For example, the cost to have separate discovery for each of these cases is prohibitive so there is a common process.

The U.S. Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation periodically releases statistics on the number of cases that are pending in court. The most recent report was issued in July 2019. The number of cases on the docket for each of these three types of litigation continues to remain steady. Even though Ethicon was pulled from the market years ago, the litigation surrounding the product is still in full swing. In addition to the multidistrict litigation, there are also numerous  individual hernia mesh cases pending in state courts.

COMPLICATIONS FROM HERNIA MESH

Hernia meshes have caused a variety of complications in those patients who have received them. These implants are intended to stabilize the surrounding area and allow healthy tissue to grow around it. In many cases, the hernia repair using mesh is successful, and the process does offer some advantages to traditional open incision hernia surgery. Namely, the recovery time from the surgery is shorter and the risk of recurrence is lower.

However, some of these benefits are negated by the dangers of hernia mesh. When the device fails, it can have serious short and long-term effects for the patients. These side effects include infection, bowel perforation, sepsis, hernia recurrence, adhesion to organs and the possibility that the device may fail. Further, the hernia mesh may migrate, and when it does, it may cause harm to the surrounding area in the body.

ETHICON PHYSIOMESH LAWSUITS

Each of these hernia meshes that are the subject of the multidistrict litigations has had issues that have either led to recalls or have drawn regulatory scrutiny. Ethicon’s physiomesh was removed from the market in 2016 due to a higher incidence of the need for recurrent surgeries. Physiomesh was rushed to the market under a streamlined FDA approval process that did not require as much research before the product could be used in surgeries. After years of use, there were a pair of studies that showed that the product’s effectiveness rate was markedly lower than that of its competitors. As a result, Ethicon took the product out of circulation, permanently. This mesh removal was not a hernia mesh recall but had all the hallmarks of a recall.

ATRIUM C-QUR LAWSUIT

Atrium’s C-Qur hernia mesh was the subject of a partial FDA recall in 2013 because patients were experiencing a higher rate of infection with this product than other meshes. There were other complications such as bowel obstructions. Patients who required surgery to remove the mesh encountered complications because of how bound up the mesh was with internal organs. The company has already set aside $200 million to cover the costs of litigation with the initial trials starting in late 2019.

C.R. BARD HERNIA MESH LAWSUITS

C.R. Bard has already settled one MDL hernia mesh litigation (The Kugel MDL) resulting from a prior iteration of hernia mesh. This particular type of hernia mesh has experienced much of the same side effects as Physiomesh and C-Qur. C.R. Bard is perhaps the dominant company in the market for all types of surgical meshes and it is no stranger to litigation. The company was also a large producer of pelvic mesh, and was one of the last companies producing that mesh before the FDA ordered pelvic mesh off of the market.

WHY HERNIA MESH SUITS ARE INCREASING

Part of the reason why the number of these lawsuits has been increasing is because hernia mesh is equivalent to a ticking time bomb in the patient’s body. Complications can arise even many years after the mesh has been implanted. Hernia meshes can fail years after the surgery. Most types of hernia mesh are made of a type of plastic, and they are not degradable. In other words, they will always be a part of the body. There have been many reports of infections occurring even years after the hernia surgery. Further, the device can fail after working for many years, necessitating a follow-up surgery.

Given the number of patients that have had surgery using hernia mesh, there is still room for the number of lawsuits to grow even further. According to the FDA, there are approximately a million hernia surgeries each year in the United States, and an overwhelming majority of these procedures rely on mesh.  In June 2019, there were approximately 1,000 new hernia mesh cases filed in U.S. courts. In addition to the possibility that a mesh can fail at any time, there is also a high rate of publicity surrounding hernia meshes, leading more plaintiffs to come forward.

For purposes of litigation, the most important thing is when a patient starts to experience symptoms of an injury. Even if the mesh was implanted many years ago, there can still be a cause of action because the statute of limitations only begins to run when the patient knew or should have known that they suffered an injury. Thus, even hernia meshes that may no longer be in use may still be the subject of litigation. When a mesh is recalled because of its danger, it simply means that the recall applies to the products that have not been implanted. Patients still keep the mesh in their body until it fails.

If you have had hernia mesh implanted and have suffered internal injuries, an infection or needed a second surgery, you may be eligible for compensation. Consult with a hernia mesh attorney to find out how you can file a claim in court that may entitle you to the compensation that you deserve for your injuries. The consultation is completely free, and you pay nothing to the attorney unless you receive a settlement or a jury award.

Refer: https://newyork.legalexaminer.com/health/number-of-ethicon-bard-and-atrium-mesh-lawsuits-increasing/

[cochranlaw]

Do I Have a Hernia Mesh Claim in Michigan?

When you develop a hernia, and it becomes necessary to undergo surgery for its repair, you expect the hernia mesh implanted into the affected area to be effective and well designed. Unfortunately, several different hernia mesh manufacturers have now been sued by many patients for complications that their hernia mesh has caused. If you believe that you have been injured or otherwise negatively affected by malfunctioning hernia mesh, you may have grounds to file a claim in Michigan for compensation for the damages caused to you by this mesh. A hernia mesh lawyer can review your situation and tell you whether or not you have a viable claim.

What is hernia mesh?

Around 90% of hernia repair surgeries that take place in the United States involve the implantation of hernia mesh. U.S. surgeons use hernia mesh in about one million surgeries each year. Hernia mesh implants reinforce the torn or damaged tissue that surrounds a hernia. The pores in the mesh allow the tissue to grow into and around the device. 

This mesh can be made of woven fibers, or it can be pressed from synthetic material. Animal tissue is also used to make some forms of mesh. Hernia mesh comes in different sizes and shapes for different forms of hernia. It is attached into the body with staples, stitches, or glue.

Types of hernia mesh

There are three main forms of hernia mesh. Hernia mesh patches are designed to go under or over damaged or weakened tissue. Hernia plugs are designed to fit inside the holes in the tissue that the hernia has caused. Sheets of hernia mesh can be customized and fitted to the needs of each patient.

Hernia mesh can be absorbable or non-absorbable as well. Absorbable mesh is used to provide short-term reinforcement to the hernia, and as the material itself degrades, new tissue growth is supposed to provide the support needed to continue the repair. The non-absorbable mesh is permanent and remains in the body indefinitely.

Some hernia mesh is coated or made of composite materials which is designed to protect the intestinal tract and prevent adhesions from happening. The four primary materials used to create hernia mesh are plastic, gortex, collagen, or a composite.

Hernia mesh malfunction

At least four different brands of hernia mesh have shown various kinds of complications that have led to their recalls. 

For example, Ethicon’s Physiomesh Flexible Composite Mesh used a coating called poliglecaprone. This coating is designed to function as a protective layer, but it can cause an inflammatory response in the patient’s body, leading to pain, mesh migration or rejection, adhesions, fistulas, delayed wound closure, bowel obstruction, mesh tearing, infection, and other problems. Many patients have filed suit against Ethicon already.

The Atrium C-Qur Mesh is used to patch ventral hernias and caused side effects like allergic reactions, adhesion, intestinal blockage, fistulas, mesh migration, and shrinkage, and even holes forming in neighboring tissues and organs.

Bard Ventralex hernia patch was designed inadequately and was found to cause adhesions, fistulas, and other forms of pain requiring further surgery.

The AlloDerm Regenerative Tissue Matrix is a collagen mesh. The manufacturers did not provide adequate instructions on pre-stretching the mesh before insertion during surgery, and mesh expansion has caused many dangerous, painful, and debilitating complications.

Final thoughts

If you believe that you have been affected by a malfunctioning hernia mesh implant made by one of these manufacturers, book a consultation with an experienced hernia mesh lawyer to determine whether or not you have a claim and whether or not you can fight to get the compensation and the justice that you deserve. 

[meshhernia-blog]

Hernia mesh procedure is used to support the damaged or torn tissues of the pelvic or abdominal region from where the organ bulges out. However, pharmaceutical giants such as C-Qur and Physiomesh have been reported to manufacture meshes which are of defective designs quality. The commonly reported surgical mesh complications are chronic pain, seromas, adhesions, mesh erosion and bowel difficulty.

[justicestartshere]

Hernia mesh is a surgical product constructed of natural or synthetic materials intended to stabilize weakened or damaged tissues.

[herniamesh2017-blog]

Are You Well Aware Of Hernia Mesh Lawsuit?

A hernia occurs when an organ bulges through a damaged or weakened muscle or tissue generally in the pelvic or abdominal region. Today, with the incredible advancement in the medical field, a less invasive laparoscopic method is used to remove the hernia. The use of a surgical mesh has become more of a standard healthcare option for almost all sorts of hernia repair.

Although popular, there have been plenty of risks associated with these surgical hernia meshes. There have been thousands of complaints reported to the FDA stating the life altering consequence of these mesh implants.

Defective or infected hernia meshes which led to hernia mesh lawsuit and focuses on the following symptoms:

Infections: this includes symptoms such as inflammation, heated skin in the infected area, flu-like symptoms like fever, nausea or vomiting and chronic pain

Organ perforation: this is a serious condition where the broken mesh perforates the nerve and organ walls and can lead to severe stomach pain, vomiting, nausea and more

Seromas: it is a painful buildup of fluid which can become an sore through infection

Bowel obstruction: with severe abdominal pain, constipation, bloating, vomiting or nausea, it often requires the intervention of surgery

Mesh migration: when the mesh gets dislocated from its intended position, it can cause a relapse of the hernia. It is often associated with nausea, severe abdominal pain, vomiting fistulas and constipation

Chronic pain: long lasting pain after the  hernia repair surgery can strongly impact any person's life as they reduces the quality of daily life causing unnecessary hindrance in movement

 Latest update on hernia mesh lawsuit:

As of July 2018, there were 1,750 hernia mesh lawsuits pending in federal MDL. Atrium and Ethicon were the two main hernia mesh manufacturers who were targeted in the lawsuit.

1,279 lawsuits were waiting for result over Ethicon’s Physiomesh products as of July 2018 at the Georgia Northern District Court. The consolidated litigation started in June 2017.

New Hampshire District Court had a total of 471 Atrium C-QUR mesh lawsuits in the course for legal action as of July 2018. In December 2016, the Multidistrict Litigation was established by the Judicial Panel.

Attorneys believe that the number of hernia mesh lawsuits will see a rise in the future even though there have been warnings released for the doctors and the public.

 Why people file the lawsuits?

Victims of the defective mesh products developed serious side effects. The lawsuits accuse the mesh makers of the following points such as:

Manufacturing an unnecessary faulty product

Failing to sufficiently do a clinical test for the surgical meshes

Did not warn the public about the related risks of mesh

Recklessly and intentionally concealed the information about the potentially dangerous meshes

Intentionally misadvertised the safety and quality of hernia mesh

Being negligent about the designing and marketing of these meshes

 Hernia Mesh Recalls

A number of hernia mesh implants have been recalled by the FDA following the complications occurring from these surgical meshes. C.R. Bard was one of the first surgical mesh companies to be recalled as they were reported to result in bowel perforation or enteric fistula. Atrium, the manufacturer of C-QUR got warning letters in 2012 for causing chronic infection and inadequacies in the sterility of the manufacturing environment.

If you or a loved one has faced any complication post the hernia mesh implant, you can file for hernia mesh lawsuit. Speak to an experienced medical device attorney to know about the process and the rights and eligibility in filing the lawsuit.

[rhodeislandcaraccidentatorney]

(via Hernia Mesh Recall NOT required to file a lawsuit - Free Consultation)

Hernia mesh manufacturers and the FDA have issued hernia mesh recalls concerning certain types of hernia mesh. A hernia mesh recall is a serious matter and is certainly strong evidence that the hernia mesh medical device is defective. Many people mistakenly believe that the removal of Ethicon Physiomesh from the market constituted a hernia mesh recall. However, there was never a Physiomesh recall.

Many victims are asking the following questions:

How do I know whether my hernia mesh is recalled?

How do I know if I have a hernia mesh lawsuit?

Signs of infected hernia mesh?

What are the Hernia mesh symptoms?

Below you will find some prominent hernia mesh recalls issued by the FDA. The most significant recalls appear to be the 2005 Bard Kugel mesh recalls.

FREE HERNIA MESH CASE EVALUATIONS

We review cases nationwide for hernia mesh victims who have endured pain and suffering as well as complications as a result of defective or recall hernia mesh medical devices.

Victims not informed of mesh implanted

Many victims are totally unaware, whether the mesh implanted into their body is a recalled medical device or has been removed by the mesh manufacturer from the market. We can help determine if a mesh victim has a case.

Evading surgical mesh recall using market withdrawal tactic

It is all too common that hernia mesh recalls are not known to the victims / consumers. Hernia mesh surgeons are made aware of the surgical mesh

recalls but the victims are often left in the dark. Some manufacturers evade a hernia mesh recall by surreptitiously removing the hernia mesh medical device from the market rather then recalling the surgical mesh. Some victims are not notified of the mesh recall until they develop severe complications and side effects from the defective hernia mesh.

RECALL IS NOT A PREREQUISITE TO RECEIVING COMPENSATION

Most victims are surprised to learn that it is not required that there be a hernia mesh recall in order to file a hernia mesh lawsuit. A hernia mesh recall is not a prerequisite to receiving compensation and justice as a result of defective hernia mesh. Hernia mesh can still be defective even if there was no FDA recall or no market withdrawal of the mesh.

EVEN IF YOU DO NOT KNOW THE TYPE OF MESH IMPLANTED YOU CAN GET LEGAL HELP

Even if you do not know what type of mesh was implanted, you can still contact us to determine whether you are eligible for compensation as a result of the defective mesh. Many victims can start the process of receiving justice and compensation even though they do not know what mesh was implanted in them.  A good hernia mesh law firm will help the mesh victim obtain his or her medical records and surgical records .Some victims of Bard / Davol mesh may even get an extended statute of limitations which may be nearly endless. Contact us to determine whether you qualify for a nearly endless hernia mesh statute of limitations.

HERNIA MESH COMPLICATIONS

“Based on FDA’s analysis of medical device adverse event reports and of peer-reviewed, scientific literature, the most common adverse events for all surgical repair of hernias—with or without mesh—are pain, infection, hernia recurrence, scar-like tissue that sticks tissues together (adhesion), blockage of the large or small intestine (obstruction), bleeding, abnormal connection between organs, vessels, or intestines (fistula), fluid build-up at the surgical site (seroma), and a hole in neighboring tissues or organs (perforation). Source

“The most common adverse events following hernia repair with mesh are pain, infection, hernia recurrence, adhesion, and bowel obstruction. Some other potential adverse events that can occur following hernia repair with mesh are mesh migration and mesh shrinkage (contraction).” Id.

Below you will find some prominent hernia mesh recalls in the past:

2018 MESH RECALL

Class 2 Device Recall Versatex Monofilament Mesh 50 x 50 cm

https://www.accessdata.fda.gov/scripts/cdrh/cfdocs/cfRES/res.cfm?id=162927

“There have been patient reports of abdominal hernia recurrence following hernia repair. The recalling firm has added a statement to the device’s Instructions for Use to make surgeons aware of risks in using the device in Transversus Abdominis Muscle Release (TAR) procedures.”

Class 2 Device Recall ProLite Mesh

https://www.accessdata.fda.gov/scripts/cdrh/cfdocs/cfRES/res.cfm?id=161830

“An incorrect ProLite Mesh configuration was packaged as product code 1010306-06, with lot number 412298. ProLite Mesh manufactured as product code 1010306-04 was inadvertently placed inside the pouch of packages labeled with product code 1010306-06 and lot number 412298.”

2016 HERNIA MESH RECALL

URGENT: MEDICAL DEVICE REMOVAL ETHICON PHYSIOMESH™ Flexible Composite Mesh (All Product Codes) (Editors note: this is not actually a hernia mesh recall)

2013 HERNIA MESH RECALL

https://www.accessdata.fda.gov/scripts/cdrh/cfdocs/cfRes/res.cfm?ID=119924

Atrium Medical Corporation 5 Wentworth Dr Hudson NH 03051-4929

Class 2 Device Recall CQUR Edge Mesh

“Atrium Medical issued Recall Letter via UPS and e-mail on 7/19/13 to the accounts and field representatives. The notification identifies the problem, product, and risk factors. If the Product is exposed to excessive humidity for an extended period of time, then the increased humidity occurring inside the pouch can potentially cause the coating on the mesh to strongly adhere to the inner handling sleeve. A reply for is requested to be completed to acknowledge receipt to the notification. Additional language to the instructions for use (IFU) to include: Prolonged exposure to high humidity may result in increased rate of adherence of the C-QUR mesh to its handling sleeve. Store in a Controlled Room Temperature (25 C / 77 F ) or less. Brief exposure to up to 40 C (104 F ) is acceptable. Questions please contact Atrium Medical Customer Service at 1- 800- 528-7486 Monday through Friday 9:00 am to 5:00 pm EDT.’

2010 HERNIA MESH RECALL

Class 2 Device Recall PROCEED Surgical Mesh

https://www.accessdata.fda.gov/scripts/cdrh/cfdocs/cfres/res.cfm?id=95190

2005 HERNIA MESH RECALL

Z-0524-06 –

Bard Composix Kugel Mesh X-Large Patch Oval With EPTFE, 8.7” X 10.7” Code: 0010206

102/22/2006Davol, Inc., Sub. C. R. Bard, Inc.

Z-0525-06 –

Bard Composix Kugel Mesh X-Large Patch Oval With EPTFE, 10.8” X 13.7” (25.4cm X 33cm) Code: 0010207

102/22/2006Davol, Inc., Sub. C. R. Bard, Inc.

Z-0762-06 –

Bard® Composix® Kugel Oval, 6.3” X 12.3” For Hernia Repairs Product Code: 0010209

102/22/2006Davol, Inc., Sub. C. R. Bard, Inc.

Z-0760-06 –

Bard® Composix® Kugel Large Oval, 5.4” X 7” For Hernia Repairs Product Code: 0010202

102/22/2006Davol, Inc., Sub. C. R. Bard, Inc.

Z-0761-06 –

Bard® Composix® Kugel Large Circle, 4.5” For Hernia Repairs Product Code: 0010204

102/22/2006Davol, Inc., Sub. C. R. Bard, Inc.

Z-0526-06 –

Bard Composix Kugel Mesh X-Large Patch Oval With EPTFE, 7.7” X 9.7” (19.6cm X 24.6cm) Code: 0010208

102/22/2006Davol, Inc., Sub. C. R. Bard, Inc.

[cassandradodds]

Atrium Medical Sued Over C-Qur Hernia Mesh, Injury Claims Mount

Plaintiffs Allege C-Qur Mesh Caused Adhesions, Recurrence, Other Adverse Events

Lawsuits are being filed over the C-Qur (pronounced “secure”) hernia mesh manufactured by Atrium Medical. The C-Qur hernia mesh contains a fish oil coating; some plaintiffs allege that the coating caused adverse events such as an allergic reaction. Plaintiffs in the C-Qur litigation allege that the device is defective and presents a risk of infection, rejection, organ perforation, inflammation, chronic pain, additional surgery, rash, neurological changes, dental problems, bowel obstruction and abnormal liver function.

Parker Waichman LLP is closely monitoring the Atrium C-Qur hernia mesh litigation. The firm continues to offer free legal consultations to individuals with questions about filing a hernia mesh lawsuit.

U.S. District Judge Landya McCafferty is overseeing the Atrium Medical C-Qur multidistrict litigation (MDL) in New Hampshire. An MDL is a type of mass tort where similar lawsuits are gathered together in one court to make the legal process more efficient. By consolidating lawsuits with common questions of fact to one court before one judge, MDLs eliminate duplicate discovery and streamline other legal proceedings with the goal of quicker resolution.

The C-Qur MDL was established in December 2016. There were 21 lawsuits transferred into the MDL as of Jan. 17, 2017, court records show. Lawsuits in the MDL allege injuries from the Atrium C-Qur mesh, C-Qur TacShield and C-Qur V-Patch.

The fish-oil coating is intended as an anti-adhesion barrier. Adhesions are a post-surgical complication where the tissues and organs stick to each other due to the presence of scar tissue. Some plaintiffs in the litigation allege that the C-Qur is defective and caused adhesions, along with other injuries. Lawsuits are also filed on behalf of plaintiffs who suffered hernia recurrence (where the hernia returned) and intestinal blockage.

In some cases, plaintiffs allege that doctors tried to remove the mesh due to complications but were unable due to the buildup of scar tissue. Lawsuits allege that Atrium Medical failed to warn patients and physicians about the risks associated with the C-Qur hernia mesh.

Atrium Medical C-Qur Background

The C-Qur was approved via 510(k), a fast-track review process. When devices are approved through this route, manufacturers are required to prove “substantial equivalence” to a previously approved device. This means that the new product is at least as safe as an older device, referred to as a predicate. Companies do not need to conduct clinical testing to prove that the new product is safe and effective. The FDA has a separate, stricter process for this known as premarket approval (PMA).

Plaintiffs, experts, and safety advocates have questioned the use of 510(k) for certain products. The route was only intended for low and moderate-risk devices, but high-risk devices such as metal-on-metal hip implants were approved through 510(k) due to a regulatory loophole.

Atrium Medical received a warning letter from the FDA in 2012 citing manufacturing violations at the company’s facility. Due to these violations, the letter said, products including the C-Qur were adulterated. The agency noted the presence of foreign substances, including human hair, in the sterile mesh.

A recall was issued for the C-Qur Edge mesh in 2013 because the coating could stick to the inner lining of the packaging in humid conditions. The action was labeled as a recall, but the product was not removed from the market. Atrium Medical sent a letter to its customers notifying them of the issue. “The notification identifies the problem, product, and risk factors. If the Product is exposed to excessive humidity for an extended period of time, then the increased humidity occurring inside the pouch can potentially cause the coating on the mesh to strongly adhere to the inner handling sleeve,” the letter said.

In October, JAMA published a study finding that the benefits of hernia mesh are partially offset by the risks. Authors commented on the fact that hernia mesh was approved through 510(k), noting the lack of clinical trial data. “the complete spectrum for the risks and benefits of mesh used to reinforce hernia repair is not known because there are very few clinical trial data reporting hernia outcomes as they pertain to mesh utilization. This highlights the need for more long-term studies of mesh repair using high-quality registries such as the one in Denmark,” the authors wrote.

Filing a Hernia Mesh Lawsuit

If you or someone you know suffered injuries related to the use of a hernia mesh product, you may have valuable legal rights. Our personal injury lawyers offer free, no-obligation case evaluations. For more information, fill out our online form or call 1-800-YOURLAWYER (1-800-968-7529).

from Parker Waichman http://www.yourlawyer.com/blog/atrium-medical-sued-over-c-qur-hernia-mesh-injury-claims-mount/

from WordPress https://parkerwaichman.wordpress.com/2017/03/06/atrium-medical-sued-over-c-qur-hernia-mesh-injury-claims-mount/

[parkerwaichmanlaw]

Atrium Medical Sued Over C-Qur Hernia Mesh, Injury Claims Mount

Plaintiffs Allege C-Qur Mesh Caused Adhesions, Recurrence, Other Adverse Events

Lawsuits are being filed over the C-Qur (pronounced “secure”) hernia mesh manufactured by Atrium Medical. The C-Qur hernia mesh contains a fish oil coating; some plaintiffs allege that the coating caused adverse events such as an allergic reaction. Plaintiffs in the C-Qur litigation allege that the device is defective and presents a risk of infection, rejection, organ perforation, inflammation, chronic pain, additional surgery, rash, neurological changes, dental problems, bowel obstruction and abnormal liver function.

Parker Waichman LLP is closely monitoring the Atrium C-Qur hernia mesh litigation. The firm continues to offer free legal consultations to individuals with questions about filing a hernia mesh lawsuit.

U.S. District Judge Landya McCafferty is overseeing the Atrium Medical C-Qur multidistrict litigation (MDL) in New Hampshire. An MDL is a type of mass tort where similar lawsuits are gathered together in one court to make the legal process more efficient. By consolidating lawsuits with common questions of fact to one court before one judge, MDLs eliminate duplicate discovery and streamline other legal proceedings with the goal of quicker resolution.

The C-Qur MDL was established in December 2016. There were 21 lawsuits transferred into the MDL as of Jan. 17, 2017, court records show. Lawsuits in the MDL allege injuries from the Atrium C-Qur mesh, C-Qur TacShield and C-Qur V-Patch.

The fish-oil coating is intended as an anti-adhesion barrier. Adhesions are a post-surgical complication where the tissues and organs stick to each other due to the presence of scar tissue. Some plaintiffs in the litigation allege that the C-Qur is defective and caused adhesions, along with other injuries. Lawsuits are also filed on behalf of plaintiffs who suffered hernia recurrence (where the hernia returned) and intestinal blockage.

In some cases, plaintiffs allege that doctors tried to remove the mesh due to complications but were unable due to the buildup of scar tissue. Lawsuits allege that Atrium Medical failed to warn patients and physicians about the risks associated with the C-Qur hernia mesh.

Atrium Medical C-Qur Background

The C-Qur was approved via 510(k), a fast-track review process. When devices are approved through this route, manufacturers are required to prove “substantial equivalence” to a previously approved device. This means that the new product is at least as safe as an older device, referred to as a predicate. Companies do not need to conduct clinical testing to prove that the new product is safe and effective. The FDA has a separate, stricter process for this known as premarket approval (PMA).

Plaintiffs, experts, and safety advocates have questioned the use of 510(k) for certain products. The route was only intended for low and moderate-risk devices, but high-risk devices such as metal-on-metal hip implants were approved through 510(k) due to a regulatory loophole.

Atrium Medical received a warning letter from the FDA in 2012 citing manufacturing violations at the company’s facility. Due to these violations, the letter said, products including the C-Qur were adulterated. The agency noted the presence of foreign substances, including human hair, in the sterile mesh.

A recall was issued for the C-Qur Edge mesh in 2013 because the coating could stick to the inner lining of the packaging in humid conditions. The action was labeled as a recall, but the product was not removed from the market. Atrium Medical sent a letter to its customers notifying them of the issue. “The notification identifies the problem, product, and risk factors. If the Product is exposed to excessive humidity for an extended period of time, then the increased humidity occurring inside the pouch can potentially cause the coating on the mesh to strongly adhere to the inner handling sleeve,” the letter said.

In October, JAMA published a study finding that the benefits of hernia mesh are partially offset by the risks. Authors commented on the fact that hernia mesh was approved through 510(k), noting the lack of clinical trial data. “the complete spectrum for the risks and benefits of mesh used to reinforce hernia repair is not known because there are very few clinical trial data reporting hernia outcomes as they pertain to mesh utilization. This highlights the need for more long-term studies of mesh repair using high-quality registries such as the one in Denmark,” the authors wrote.

Filing a Hernia Mesh Lawsuit

If you or someone you know suffered injuries related to the use of a hernia mesh product, you may have valuable legal rights. Our personal injury lawyers offer free, no-obligation case evaluations. For more information, fill out our online form or call 1-800-YOURLAWYER (1-800-968-7529).

from Parker Waichman http://www.yourlawyer.com/blog/atrium-medical-sued-over-c-qur-hernia-mesh-injury-claims-mount/

[number06fan]

Hernia mesh recalls, complications, and lawsuits

A hernia mesh is a surgical implant made of synthetic plastic fibers used to support damaged tissue around hernias and help it heal after surgery. In about 90% of hernia surgeries, doctors employ hernia mesh to aid the recovery process, but a number of allegations and lawsuits have surfaced that claim hernia mesh may cause more damage than it’s worth. Oftentimes, if a patient experiences complications because of their hernia mesh implant, another surgery is required to correct the problem or remove the mesh.

The hernia mesh is implanted on and around the damaged hernia tissue with staples, stitches, or glue. The mesh quality of the medical device allows the tissue to grow in and around it as it heals and is meant to lower the risk of a recurring hernia.

According to the FDA, the most common complications associated with hernia mesh are pain, infection, hernia recurrence, adhesion, and bowel obstruction. In more severe cases, patients reported sepsis, punctured abdominal organs, peritonitis, abscesses, and abdominal wall tears.

The majority of these mesh complications were caused by recalled mesh. Over the past 15 years, the FDA has recalled a number of different manufacturers’ hernia mesh, and many manufacturers issued voluntary recalls. Some examples include:

Atrium Medical Corporation’s C-QuR V-pack Mesh

Physiomesh Flexible Composite Mesh from Johnson & Johnson and Ethicon

Atrium Medical Corporation’s ProLite Mesh

Sofradim Production’s Versatex Monofilament Mesh

Parietex Composite Parastomal Mesh made by Covidien LLC

You can find more information about recalled mesh here.

Because so many patients have been adversely affected by hernia mesh, there have been a number of class-action lawsuits filed against the manufacturers. If your hernia mesh was implanted after January 1, 2008, and you had or have scheduled a hernia mesh repair surgery, you are likely qualified to file a lawsuit.

Contact a New York defective medical device lawyer

If you or a loved one have experienced adverse side effects caused by a hernia mesh implant, you may be entitled to significant compensation. The attorneys at Hach & Rose, LLP have the experience necessary to hold medical device manufacturers accountable when their devices cause people harm. Our team will seek full and fair compensation to help you pay for your medical bills, lost wages, pain, and suffering, and other losses. Call us at [phone number] to discuss your rights and legal options today.

[davidslepkow]

We are currently reviewing hernia mesh lawsuits for individuals who are interested in pursuing compensation, justice and accountability in the United States Federal Courts. The Ethicon Physiomesh™ Hernia Mesh lawsuits in the United States are individual lawsuits. These individual lawsuits in the United States are now multi district litigation (MDL) consolidated in the Northern District of Georgia in front of the Honorable Honorable Richard W. Story, “for coordinated or consolidated pretrial proceedings.” *** Some individuals have opted to file lawsuits in various state Courts.

PHYSIOMESH CLASS ACTION LAWSUIT IN CANADA

In Canada, the Ethicon Physiomesh™ Flexible Composite Mesh litigation constitutes a class action. In Canada there was a mesh recall for Physiomesh. Many Canadian victims may be unaware of their potential right to utilize the Federal Courts in the United States to pursue justice and accountability as a result of defective hernia mesh. Can Canadian Ethicon Physiomesh hernia mesh victims file a hernia mesh lawsuit in the United States of America (USA)? Certain Canadian citizens, who are victims, may be able to file a mesh lawsuit in the United States.

Canada Hernia mesh lawsuit | Canada mesh class action

HERNIA MESH LAWSUIT ATTORNEYS

We are not attorneys in Canada. We do not represent any clients in the Canada Physiomesh class action. If you need legal advice concerning the law in Canada related to the Canadian Physiomesh class actions or Canada hernia mesh lawsuits or the Ethicon Physiomesh Class Action, contact a Canada hernia mesh lawyer.

The author of this article is attorney David Slepkow. David Slepkow is an attorney licensed to practice in front of the United States Supreme Court. David is also a personal injury lawyer licensed to practice In Rhode Island and Providence Plantations as well as the Commonwealth of Massachusetts. David was a longtime member of the bar for The U.S. Federal Court, First Circuit, District of Rhode Island.

ETHICON PHYSIOMESH™ HERNIA MESH:  RECALL IN CANADA | MARKET REMOVAL IN THE UNITED STATES

The laws in the United States and Canada are different as far as product liability and defective hernia mesh litigation is concerned. On May 25th, 2016, Health Canada recalled Ethicon Physiomesh™ Flexible Composite Mesh from the Canadian markets.  Recall and Safety Alerts PHYSIOMESH FLEXIBLE COMPOSITE MESH (2016-05-25) “Health Canada is the Federal department responsible for helping Canadians maintain and improve their health, while respecting individual choices and circumstances”  About Health Canada “According to our mission and vision, Health Canada’s goal is for Canada to be among the countries with the healthiest people in the world.” Id.

CANADA CLASS ACTION- HERNIA MESH RECALL IN CANADA

According to cbc, “Siskinds, a law firm from London, Ont., is applying to certify a class action lawsuit on behalf of Canadian patients who have had problems with Physiomesh™” cbc  According to cbc, “What happens is, we allege, is that it triggers major complications” Id.  “It moves, and then people have mesh that’s either pulled apart or moved, and isn’t doing the job it was put in to do.”  Id.

“According to the class action’s statement of claim in Canada, the plaintiffs allege that there is a “design defect” in the Physiomesh™ that causes it to contract, tear, or migrate, leading to such injuries as perforations, abscess and adhesion formations, infections, and the need for further surgery.” CTV

“These Canadian victims assert that there were not properly warned of the dangers of the device.” Id.

According to CTV news, “The device at the center of the claims is Ethicon’s Physiomesh™ Hernia Mesh which Health Canada recalled in 2016. The Canadian agency’s action came after it learned that recurrence and reoperation rates with the device were higher than those of other meshes.” CTV NEWS, Canaadian news

SUPREME COURT OF CANADA: “FAIR AND EFFICIENT RESOLUTION”

The Supreme Court of Canada underscored the importance of Class actions in Canada stating: “While the class action has existed in one form or another for hundreds of years, its importance has increased of late.  Particularly in complicated cases implicating the interests of many people, the class action may provide the best means of fair and efficient resolution.” Western Canadian Shopping Centres Inc. v. Dutton, [2001] 2 SCR 534, 2001 SCC 46 (CanLII), <http://canlii.ca/t/520c>, retrieved on 2017-06-10.

Some provinces in Canada have enacted comprehensive legislation related to class action causes of action “And in Canada, the provinces of British Columbia, Ontario, and Quebec have enacted comprehensive statutory schemes to govern class action practice:  see British Columbia Class Proceedings Act, R.S.B.C. 1996, c. 50; Ontario Class Proceedings Act, 1992, S.O. 1992, c. 6; Quebec Code of Civil Procedure, R.S.Q., c. C-25, Book IX.”  https://www.canlii.org/en/ca/scc/doc/2001/2001scc46/2001scc46.html

If there is no comprehensive legislation,” Absent comprehensive codes of class action procedure, provincial rules based on Rule 10, Schedule, of the English Supreme Court of Judicature Act, 1873 govern. Western Canadian Shopping Centres Inc. v. Dutton, [2001] 2 SCR 534, 2001 SCC 46 (CanLII)  https://www.canlii.org/en/ca/scc/doc/2001/2001scc46/2001scc46.html

ETHICON PHYSIOMESH™ HERNIA MESH USED IN CANADA SINCE 2010

Physiomesh™ Flexible Composite Mesh has been surgically implanted into patients in Canada since September 2010. CTV  Some Canadian victims in Canada have filed a class action against Ethicon Inc.  Ethicon is a subsidiary of Johnson and Johnson.

VICTIMS ACROSS CANADA | CANADA PHYSIOMESH RECALL

Victims across Canada including victim’s from: Toronto, Montreal, Vancouver, Ottawa, Calgary, Edmonton, Quebec City, Winnipeg, Halifax and Hamilton may find the Hernia Mesh lawsuit information in this blog helpful in making important decisions concerning their claim for compensation. There may be thousands of victims across the following provinces: Canada: Ontario, Quebec, British Columbia, Manitoba,  Manitoba,  Newfoundland and Labrador. Victims in Canada should consult with hernia mesh attorneys in the United States as well as Canadian Class action lawyers.

THE 411 ON THE CANADA ETHICON PHYSIOMESH RECALL

“Starting date: May 25, 2016 | Posting date: June 13, 2016 | Type of communication:Medical Device Recall | Subcategory: Medical Device | Hazard classification: Type II | Source of recall: Health Canada | Issue: Medical Devices |Audience: General Public, Healthcare Professionals, Hospitals | Identification number: RA-58846” http://healthycanadians.gc.ca/recall-alert-rappel-avis/hc-sc/2016/58846r-eng.php

ETHICON’S MARKET REMOVAL IN THE UNITED STATES

In the United States,  on May 26th, 2016, Ethicon issued an “urgent” field safety notice concerning  ETHICON PHYSIOMESH™ Flexible Composite Mesh (All Product Codes).  Ethicon is a subsidiary of Johnson and Johnson. These product codes are: PHY0715R, PHY1015V, PHY1515Q, PHY1520R, PHY1520V, PHY2025V, PHY2030R, PHY2535V, PHY3035R, PHY3050R. In that notice, Ethicon stated: “We have initiated a worldwide medical device removal of ETHICON PHYSIOMESH™ Flexible Composite Mesh (for laparoscopic use) (“ETHICON PHYSIOMESH™ Composite Mesh”).

THE LAWSUITS IN THE UNITED STATES ARE INDIVIDUAL LAWSUITS THAT ARE PART OF  MULTI DISTRICT LITIGATION

The Panel on Multi District Litigation in the United States (US) ordered that “IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that the actions listed on Schedule A and pending outside the Northern District of Georgia are transferred to the Northern District of Georgia and, with the consent of that court, assigned to the Honorable Richard W. Story for coordinated or consolidated pretrial proceedings.  Transfer order

More in depth information about the United States Individual lawsuits

WHAT IS PHYSIOMESH™FLEXIBLE COMPOSITE MESH BY ETHICON?

According to medline.com, “ETHICON PHYSIOMESH™ Flexible Composite Mesh is a sterile, low profile, flexible composite mesh designed for the repair of hernias and other fascial deficiencies. The mesh product is composed of a nonabsorbable, macroporous polypropylene mesh laminated between two polyglecaprone-25 films. An undyed polydioxanone film provides the bond between the polyglecaprone-25 film and polypropylene mesh. The polypropylene component is constructed of knitted filaments of extruded polypropylene. An additional dyed (D&C Violet No. 2) polydioxanone film marker has been added for orientation purposes.”http://www.medline.com/product/PHYSIOMESH-Flexible-Composite-Mesh-by-Ethicon/Z05-PF47325

CANADIAN CITIZENS MAY BE UNAWARE OF THEIR RIGHTS TO PURSUE JUSTICE IN THE UNITED STATES’ COURT SYSTEM

Apparently, the vast majority of aggrieved Canadian Ethicon Physiomesh™ victims are not aware that they have the option of utilizing the United States Judicial system for compensation* “As Americans continue to file hernia mesh lawsuits, Canadians began their hernia mesh class action claiming they weren’t warned of the implant’s risks.” More info

IN UNITED STATES ETHICON PHYSIOMESH™ CLAIMS ARE INDIVIDUAL LAWSUITS , NOT CLASS ACTIONS!

This is a very important distinction. These Ethicon Physiomesh™ in The U.S. are not a “class action” under United States law as defined by the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, 28 U.S.C.A. § 23

WE ARE REVIEWING POTENTIAL CASES OF DEFECTIVE HERNIA MESH, MADE OF NON-ABSORBABLE POLYPROPYLENE THAT MAY HAVE CAUSED INJURIES, INCLUDING:

Ethicon Physiomesh™

Atrium C-QUR

Composix® Kugel® mesh patches (manufactured by C.R. Bard subsidiary Davol)

All C.R. Bard mesh patches made of Marlex polypropylene

PROBLEMS WITH CLASS ACTIONS

Class actions can be very problematic since individual claimants do not have control over their own case. Individual claimants may not have control over a settlement. Lawinfo sets forth one of the main problems with class actions: “Lack of decision making control. Class action lawsuits are, by definition, representative rather than group litigation. That means that representatives of the affected class make the important litigation decisions – including when to settle. A plaintiff who is not a representative does not have a say in whether to settle or continue to litigation.”  Lawinfo Resource

WHAT IS THE PURPOSE OF A CLASS ACTION

“Class actions are a mechanism designed to provide access to the courts for claims that are too small to be prosecuted economically on their own,” said Robb, a partner in class actions at Siskinds LLP in London, Ont.” https://www.theglobeandmail.com/globe-investor/personal-finance/household-finances/thinking-of-joining-a-class-action-lawsuit-know-your-options/article19777681/

“Class actions lump together all those who might meet the stated criteria for the class. A certified action has two phases. A first phase sorts out the “common issues” for all the class members, and the second looks at the individual circumstances for each class member. So while class actions do eventually look at an individual’s situation, this doesn’t happen until much later in the case. That “common issues” phase can take a long, long time. The controversy is whether it’s fair, post certification, to make all class members wait until that common issues phase wraps up before individual class members can settle their own claims.” http://business.financialpost.com/legal-post/the-opt-out-option-controversy

DO I NEED TO OPT OUT OF A CANADIAN CLASS ACTION?

Please consult with a Canadian class action hernia mesh lawyer whether you have to opt out of the class action. A Canada Ethicon Physiomesh™ hernia mesh attorney can explain your legal rights in Canada regarding whether you need to opt out of the Canadian Hernia mesh class action. A mesh recall is a serious matter and you should seek legal advice.

“Ontario is an “opt-out” jurisdiction. That means if a representative plaintiff succeeds in getting an action certified, potential members of the class are given a window of time during which they can declare that they want out. After this “opt-out” period expires, qualified members of the class action are in, whether they like it or not. Cue the Eagles … and welcome to the Hotel California.”  Opt out info

“Canadian jurisdictions have adopted opt-out regimes subject to one exception to be discussed.  The opt-out regime was adopted because of the widely held view that most class members are passive in the proceedings. Thus, to have an opt-in regime would have the effect of greatly diminishing the size of most classes in many instances because potential members would not take the necessary steps to have themselves included in the class or they might not have obtained actual notice at all. At the same time, opt-out regimes do permit class members who are actively opposed to the proceedings to exclude themselves if they are so inclined; few have done so. Class action

“Since the same witnesses and authorities will be relevant in each case, consolidating them makes sense. It also allows a Defendant to settle knowing that they will then not face individual claims later for the same thing. Once a class action is brought everyone who has a similar claim becomes a member of the class and subject to the findings in the class action lawsuit unless they specifically choose to opt out of the class action so they can bring their own claim.” http://adrworks.com/class-action-lawsuit/

CLASS ACTIONS IN CANADA

“Most class action claims settle and all settlements must be approved by the court and found to be in the best interests of the members of the class who are claiming. Individual class members may give input to the court when a settlement is proposed. This may include opposing the settlement especially if they would not benefit from it or if they believe the compensation is not adequate. Once a settlement is approved by the court people who are entitled then file claims which are assessed by a claims administrator in accordance with the settlement agreement. Once all claims are assessed it can be determined how much any person will receive as compensation. It may still take a long time from settlement to payment as many of our clients have experienced with the Vioxx case which settled with an agreement in January 2012, with court approval given in September 2012 and claims still being assessed almost to the end of 2015. Payment of those claims is now expected early in 2016.” http://adrworks.com/class-action-lawsuit/

Referring to transvaginal tape litigation, “Matthew Baer, a lawyer with the Siskinds Law firm in Ontario tells MDND they don’t have Multidistrict litigation in Canada, instead a person can file an individual claim or join a class action. In Canada, we file on behalf of one person and get that certified as it applies to everyone else. The individual issues will be sorted out down the road. It can take two years to be certified and we don’t get access to discovery until the case is certified. It is only after the class is certified that a Canadian law firm can move ahead on discovery getting documents from the other side.  As the case proceeds individual are brought forward to represent the class like a mini-trial.” http://www.meshmedicaldevicenewsdesk.com/canadian-courts-take-aim-at-ethicon/

WHAT ARE THE COMPLICATIONS OF MESH REJECTION

According to CLG.org, “The alleged injuries, conditions and complications suffered due to hernia mesh products include, but are not limited to:

– Hernia recurrence – Chronic pain – Mesh contraction – Mesh migration – Scarring – Adhesions – Infection and abscess formation – Pain with sex – Testicle removal – Bleeding – Intestinal blockage – Fistulas – Hematomas – Seromas – Liver abnormalities – Perforations – Bowel obstructions – Dental problems – Autoimmune disorders” https://www.clg.org/Class-Action/List-of-Class-Actions/Hernia-Mesh-Injury-Canadian-Class-Action

*** The U.S. Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation (JPML) ordered that all Ethicon Psyiomesh hernia mesh causes of action are transferred to the Northern District of Georgia. “IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that the actions listed on Schedule A and pending outside the Northern District of Georgia are transferred to the Northern District of Georgia and, with the consent of that court, assigned to the Honorable Richard W. Story for coordinated or consolidated pretrial proceedings.” Transfer order

The Court reasoned that,“We are also not persuaded that informal coordination is a practicable solution here. Almost 70 actions are pending in 36 district courts, and dozens of law firms are involved in this litigation. Section 1407 centralization will place all actions before one judge who can structure pretrial proceedings to enhance efficiency and more effectively minimize overlap.” Id. ” Centralization will eliminate duplicative discovery; prevent inconsistent pretrial rulings; and conserve the resources of the parties, their counsel, and the judiciary.” Id.

THE RECEIPT OF SUCH HERNIA MESH INFORMATION DOES NOT CONSTITUTE, AN ATTORNEY-CLIENT RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN SLEPKOW SLEPKOW & ASSOCIATES INC. AND THE READER OR VISITOR. IN THE EVENT THAT ANY INFORMATION ON THIS WEBSITE DOES NOT FULLY CONFORM TO REGULATIONS, LAWS OR CASE LAW IN ANY JURISDICTION, THIS LAW FIRM WILL NOT ACCEPT SUCH CLIENTS.. IN CERTAIN STATES THIS HERNIA MESH ATTORNEY BLOG MAY BE DEEMED ATTORNEY ADVERTISING. WE AT SLEPKOW SLEPKOW ASSOCIATE’S INC..HAVE MADE EVERY EFFORT TO COMPLY WITH ALL ADVERTISING LAWS AND RULES. THE RHODE ISLAND SUPREME COURT LICENSES ALL LAWYERS AND ATTORNEYS IN THE GENERAL PRACTICE OF LAW, BUT DOES NOT LICENSE OR CERTIFY ANY LAWYER / ATTORNEY AS AN EXPERT OR SPECIALIST IN ANY FIELD OF PRACTICE. WHILE THIS FIRM MAINTAINS JOINT RESPONSIBILITY, MOST CASES OF THIS TYPE ARE REFERRED TO OTHER ATTORNEYS FOR PRINCIPLE RESPONSIBILITY. David Slepkow is not licensed to practice law in Canada. This website does not constitute legal advice in Canada. David Slepkow is not an Ethicon Physiomesh™ Class Action lawyer in Canada.

[cochranlaw]

5 Manufacturer’s Hernia Mesh Implants that Cause Complications

For almost 15 years, thousands of hernia mesh lawsuits have been filed against manufacturing companies by personal injury lawyers on behalf of patients injured by allegedly faulty hernia mesh devices.

What is a hernia mesh implant?

A hernia forms when abdominal tissue separates and allow other abdominal tissue or organs to penetrate through the hole that leads to pain, infections, and possible obstructions. Hernia mesh devices are supposed to stabilize the tissue surrounding the hole and to contain the protruding tissue. They come in different shapes and sizes; some companies carry product lines and others just a group of devices for specific purposes.

Hernia mesh devices can be patches, sheets or plugs and can be made from a variety of materials, be it animal-derived, synthetic (such as polypropylene), coated or composite. They may also be absorbable or non-absorbable.

What are the known side-effects?

Mesh shrinkage

Tissue fusion

Hernia recurrence

Severe or chronic pain

Infection

Bowel blockage

Organ perforation

What are the Injuries caused by allegedly faulty implants?

Common injuries of hernia mesh implants

Adhesions

Erosion of the implant device

Mesh failure

Abdominal pain

Groin and testicular pain

Migration

Infections

Recurrence of the hernia 

Most serious injuries in hernia mesh cases

Perforation of organs or tissues and organ damage

Bowel obstruction

Fistulas

Seromas

Chronic pain

Life-threatening infections

Multiple surgeries

Autoimmune problems

Delayed or long-term consequences

Wrongful death

Which hernia mesh devices are the culprits?

Large numbers of devices have been recalled and taken off the market, some voluntarily by the manufacturers and others by the FDA (Food and Drug Administration).

Cases settled:

CR BARD

Thorpe vs. Bard – Composite Kugel Patch - $1.5 million jury award

CR Bard MDL # 1842 – Composite Kugel Patch - Pays $184 Million to Resolve Earlier Lawsuits

Bard settles Hernia Mesh class-action in Canada - Composix Kugel hernia mesh patch - $1.375 million.

Current cases:

Bard and Davol, MDL #2846

19 different brands of Bard Davol’s polypropylene products

Bard Ventralight ST Mesh with Echo PS" 8" Circle

Bard Ventralight ST Mesh with Echo PS™ 7"x 9"

Bard Ventralight ST Mesh with Echo PS" 6"x 8"

Bard Ventralight ST Mesh with Echo PS" 6"x 10"

Bard Ventralight ST Mesh with Echo PS" 6" Circle

Bard Ventralight ST Mesh with Echo PS" 8"x 10"

Bard Ventralight ST Mesh with Echo PS" 4.5" Circle

Bard Ventralight ST Mesh with Echo PS" 12"x 14"

Bard Ventralight ST Mesh with Echo PS" 10"x 13"

Bard Composix L/P Mesh with Echo PS" 8"x 10"

Bard Composix" L/P Mesh with Echo PS" 7"x 9"

Bard Ventralight" ST Mesh with Echo PS" 4"x 6"

Bard Composix L/P with Echo PS 10" x 13"

Bard Composix L/P with Echo PS 6"x 8"

Bard Ventralight ST Mesh. - Ellipse 8" x 10"

Bard Ventralight ST Mesh. - Ellipse 7" x 9"

Bard Soft Mesh 4"x 6" Flat

Bard 3D Max Mesh, Pre-formed Knitted Polypropylene

Bard Ventralex Hernia Patch Medium Circle

Bard Mesh Pre-shaped

Bard Ventrio Small Oval Hernia Patch 8cm X 12cm

Bard Composix KugelMesh X-Large Patch Oval with ePTFE, 7.7'' x 9.7''

Bard Composix Kugel Mesh X-Large Patch Oval with ePTFE, 10.8'' x 13.7''

Bard Composix Kugel Mesh X-Large Patch Oval with ePTFE, 8.7'' x 10.7''

2. Atrium, MDL #2753

C-Qur, with Omega 3

Atrium ProLite

Atrium C-QUR Edge

Atrium C-QUR TacShield

Atrium C-QUR

Atrium C-QUR V-Patch

3. Ethicon, MDL #2782

Physiomesh Flexible Composite

Ethicon Physiomesh multi-county litigation

Physiomesh Flexible Composite

Ethicon Other:

Ethicon Proceed – delamination, polypropylene concerns, sterility

4. Gore

Gore-Tex hernia mesh

5. Covidien / Medtronic

Parietex line

Composite Mesh, 

Parietex Composite Parastomal Mesh - hernia recurrence

Surgical Mesh, 

ProGrip Mesh 

Parietene lines

Covidien AutoSuture SURGIPRO Polypropylene Mesh Clear 3" x 5"

[forlawfirmsonlymarketing]

Bard Hernia Mesh Cases Leading the Charge to Settlements in Hernia Mesh Litigations

The primary Bard Hernia Mesh state litigation, pending in Rhode Island state court under Judge Gibney, is now set to begin its first bellwether trials that will focus on claims involving the Ventralex patch product, and proceed to trials involving the Composix E/X product. Not to be outdone, and though only designated in August 2018, the Bard Hernia Mesh Multidistrict Litigation (“MDL”) in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Ohio under Judge Sargus, is also steaming along. Plaintiffs and Defendants have narrowed down the initial bellwether pool to six cases – three cases chosen by each side. On January 13, 2020, the parties will submit briefing detailing which cases each party believes should go to trial. Based on that briefing, on January 24, 2020, the Court will select three of those cases for the first bellwether trials. After remaining case specific discovery and motion practice, those cases will go to trial on May 11, 2020; July 13, 2020; and September 14, 2020. All of this is playing out against the backdrop of the looming Atrium C-QUR Hernia Mesh MDL bellwether cases, in the United States District Court for the District of New Hampshire under Judge McCafferty, moving through similar procedures and set to begin on May 20, 2020. Then there is the Physiomesh Hernia Mesh MDL in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Georgia under Judge Story, with the first bellwether trial scheduled for July 20, 2020, and the related lawsuits currently consolidated in New Jersey state court under Judge Porto following closely behind. The Plaintiffs hope that the aggressive prosecution of these hernia mesh lawsuits to bellwether trials is likely to lead to quicker, and more favorable, settlements for those injured by the numerous manufacturers of defective hernia mesh.

https://www.forlawfirmsonly.com/bard-hernia-mesh-cases-leading-the-charge-to-settlements-in-hernia-mesh-litigations/

[justicestartshere]

Hernias are a common condition in the United States and are typically treated through surgery with hernia mesh. Hernia mesh…