News Feed Discussions Big picture – Litigation – Perfix plug Reply To: Big picture – Litigation – Perfix plug

  • Good intentions

    Member
    December 25, 2022 at 1:22 pm

    This big lawsuit against C. R. Bard (now owned by Becton Dickinson) gets more interesting, and bigger. The initial description seems flawed, typical of many of these types of suits, in that they are trying to show that there was a specific defect in a product instead of showing that the product design itself is defective. But, regardless, as the suit proceeds, the extend of the damage will become more apparent.

    The downside is that, according to a friend from way back who works in venture capital now, new product development is being delayed, because the corporations are waiting to see where the litigation ends up.

    Here’s the latest –

    “December 16, 2022 Update

    As hernia mesh settlement rumors mount, the C.R. Bard hernia mesh MDL continues to add new cases as we slowly inch closer to a pivotal 3rd bellwether trial in May 2023 (recently postponed from February).

    The class action lawsuit added 273 new hernia mesh cases to the MDL over the past month, increasing the total pending Bard mesh lawsuits to 18,227. The Bard hernia mesh MDL grew by 23% in 2022, adding 3,380 cases.

    It is still the second largest mass tort behind only the 3M earplugs MDL.”

    Here’s the original court document for MDL-2846 –

    https://www.ohsd.uscourts.gov/multidistrict-litigation-2846

    “Introduction – MDL 2846
    This Multidistrict Litigation (“MDL”) was created by Order of the United States Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation (“JPML”) on August 2, 2018. In its August 2, 2018 Order, the JPML found that the actions in this MDL “involve common questions of fact, and that centralization in the Southern District of Ohio will serve the convenience of the parties and witnesses and promote the just and efficient conduct of this litigation.” The JPML continued that, “[a]ll of the actions share common factual questions arising out of allegations that defects in defendants’ polypropylene hernia mesh products can lead to complications when implanted in patients, including adhesions, damage to organs, inflammatory and allergic responses, foreign body.” “