News Feed Discussions The value of litigation

  • The value of litigation

    Posted by Good intentions on October 11, 2023 at 12:26 pm

    I had another thread about litigation but it was getting so long that it was acting weirdly when I tried to get to the last post. I’ll post a link to it in the next post, with the searchable title in case the link doesn’t work.

    Modern “free-market” society is based on the premise that there are remedies for bad products. The most simple is to not buy the product. Litigation is used when the product causes damage that cannot be fixed by avoiding the product. The supplier of the bad product is supposed to make the victim “whole” and also to supply compensation for things like opportunity cost. The things lost while the victim dealt with the results of the bad product. Called damages.

    Today’s litigation battle is between the damaged end user of the products, the hernia patients, and the suppliers of the medical products, the mesh device manufacturers. Big-picture wise the litigation has value to society because it should cause the manufacturers to remove the products from market if it costs the manufacturers so much that their price increases become unsustainable. Saving future patients from damage.

    Regulation of the consumer products markets is supposed to help consumers also. But for whatever reason the hernia mesh market is essentially unregulated. The FDA is almost complicit in helping the marketing efforts of the device makers. They probably have powerful lobbyists in D.C.
    .
    .
    Anyway, the bigger the settlements, the more incentive the device makers have to remove bad products and invest in research to make better products. Today’s devices are essentially the same as the ones produced forty/fifty years ago. The revenue stream is continuous and the device makers have had little incentive to do anything. It looks like big settlements from litigation is the only real hope for improvement in the mesh repair field.
    .
    .
    Here is the latest in the Becton Dickinson (Bard) PerFix MDL. Links after the excerpt.
    .

    “…
    October 10, 2023: The third bellwether trial is upcoming in the case of Stinson v. Davol, et al. The plaintiff in the case underwent a right inguinal hernia repair in 2015, during which he had a Bard Per-Fix Mesh implanted. For 2 years after the surgery, the plaintiff had chronic pain in the area. In 2017, he underwent exploratory surgery to determine if it was a recurrent hernia or nerve entrapment causing the pain. During this procedure, the surgeon found that the Bard mesh implant had curled up into a ball, causing major scarring on the internal tissue. The mesh was removed and replaced, but the plaintiff continued to have pain.

    October 2, 2023: The third bellwether test trial is set to be in 2 weeks in the Stinson case. We could see this case settle before the trial actually happens, but in the meantime, the lawyers for both sides certainly appear to be gearing up for trial. Bard has filed numerous pretrial motions over the last 2 weeks, including a significant motion filed on September 29th seeking to limit the testimony of one of the plaintiffs’ experts.
    …”

    https://www.bd.com/en-us/products-and-solutions/products/product-families/perfix-plug

    https://www.millerandzois.com/products-liability/hernia-mesh-case-value/

    Christopher replied 3 hours, 34 minutes ago 3 Members · 19 Replies
  • 19 Replies
  • Christopher

    Member
    April 17, 2024 at 10:46 am

    Hi I’m a 36 year old male I want our story heard since this is the only media outlet where others like myself can speak to one another and it’s time we get together for ourselves and any future victims. That being said here is my story. I was really active fit enjoy all sorts of physical activities. I was a medic in the military with 2 deployments fitness trainer did mma and due to complications my whole life has been stolen from. Since 2015 I’ve had 10 surgeries causing me to lose both testicles leaving me urinary incontinent and now facing a 11th procedure in the future. Due to mesh. It has effected many aspects of my life from employment sex to every day activities. Worse of all my ability to get my son back in my life cause I’m having to take so much time for recovery. I think it’s time the doctors hospitals and companies take responsibility for the damage the mass tort cases only benefit the lawyers and the company by forcing to take the small settlement offered. Not one of us has had a say of any kind throughout the proceedings mostly radio silence and all I get from my lawyer at parker waichman is this how it’s done sad how you get better representation as a criminal I’m currently being offered 67000$ no help with medical or reoccurring costs each month and given the company earnings the entire settlement is just a slap on the wrist so if there are others out there like me please reach out they’re still using mesh and it could be your child in the future let’s end it now enough is enough

  • Good intentions

    Member
    November 26, 2023 at 11:55 am

    This will probably still show up in the middle of the thread so if you click the title you’ll have to search upwards to try to find it.

    Does anyone out there understand multi-district litigation, class actions, and global settlements? The latest news is that there is discussion about a global settlement. I assume that this only pays out to people that have signed up to be a part of a larger group. Individuals should still be able to sue based on their own individual cases. that seems like the right way, but it might not be the legal way.

    Anyway, here is the latest, from November 18th.

    >NOVEMBER 18, 2023: STATUS CONFERENCE SET FOR HERNIA MESH CLASS ACTION MDL LAWSUIT

    After the latest bellwether trial resulted in a $500,000 verdict for the Plaintiff, the class-action MDL (which houses the majority of the cases) is set for a status conference on January 16, 2024. While the case is not technically a “class-action” it does share many similarities. The conference will likely discuss the next steps for the case, including the possibility of a global settlement, of the need for another bellwether trial. The defendant (C.R. Bard) and lawyers for the Plaintiff’s will be present to give Judge Sargus an update on the possible direction and next steps.”

    https://www.robertkinglawfirm.com/personal-injury/hernia-mesh-lawsuit/

  • Good intentions

    Member
    November 18, 2023 at 10:44 am

    Another update from one of the MDL news pages. 300 cases per month added, on average since the beginning of the year. That is a lot of money out the door for the device makers if the settlement numbers are large. Might be worthwhile to invest some R&D money in to a better mesh product. Pay the scientists instead of the attorneys.

    https://www.millerandzois.com/products-liability/hernia-mesh-case-value/

    “November 17, 2023: MDL Adds 400 New Cases

    Another 400 new cases were added to the Bard hernia mesh MDL over the last 30 days. There are now 20,768 plaintiffs in this hernia mesh MDL. Since the start of 2023, the Bard hernia mesh MDL has averaged over 300 new cases each month.”

  • Good intentions

    Member
    November 16, 2023 at 2:24 am

    The next trial is really interesting. It involves a very popular mesh, Bard 3D Max, that is used in laparoscopic and robotic procedures. Very mainstream modern hernia repair, the type to where the societies and technology companies are trying to push the hernia repair field. It could have big impact. It looks like they’re focusing on the “3D” nature of the product and its tendency to fold. Although the flat meshes fold also. The focus on manufacturing though, essentially gives an “out” for Bard (now BD) for seling future product. They should focus on the verifiable facts and the harm done. Don’t dilute the argument..

    “November 13, 2023: More Bellwether Trials Set

    What is next in the hernia mesh lawsuits? Another trial. Scheduled for January 2024, the fourth/fifth bellwether trial involving Bard centers on plaintiff Jacob Bryan, who underwent a surgical procedure involving the use of a 3DMax hernia mesh for inguinal/groin hernia repair. Post-surgery, Mr. Bryan experienced severe complications, including mesh deformation and chronic pain, which have necessitated ongoing medical treatment and may lead to additional surgery.

    Originally selected as a bellwether trial by the defendants years ago, there was an effort by them to remove Mr. Bryan’s trial date. Their argument centered on the premise that Mr. Bryan’s complications were more severe than initially expected, potentially skewing the representative nature of the bellwether trial. However, the motion to replace Mr. Bryan as a bellwether case was denied by the Judge Sargus.

    The product at the center of this case, the 3DMax hernia mesh, is subject to similar allegations as other products in similar lawsuits. The plaintiff accuses Bard of failing to adequately warn both patients and healthcare providers about the significant risks and potential complications associated with the use of the 3DMax mesh. This includes not just an omission of known risks but also underrepresentation of the severity and frequency of possible adverse effects. Additionally, the lawsuit raises issues regarding the design and manufacturing of the 3DMax mesh. It is alleged that defects in the design and manufacturing process contributed to the complications suffered by patients like Mr. Bryan.”

    https://www.millerandzois.com/products-liability/hernia-mesh-case-value/

  • Good intentions

    Member
    November 5, 2023 at 6:54 pm

    I have found the Discussion page. And used Search to find my old thread. Search on the “News Feed” page does not search the Discussion page. That explains my previous problem.

    @dev (Sorry to be so demanding. Discussing the hernia repair situation is a form of catharsis for me, and HerniaTalk is a big part of it).

    I have found some documents that describe the complete path to the current state of Per-Fix plug case. Pretty interesting. You can see who used the plug initially, and who removed it then used a different type of mesh to repair the defect.

    “<b style=”background-color: var(–bb-content-background-color); font-family: inherit; font-size: inherit; color: var(–bb-body-text-color);”>November 3, 2023 Update

    We are still in the defense case in Stinson. Dr. Radke, the explanting surgeon, testified by videotape yesterday.”

    Here is a recent document regarding the case, with a summary.

    https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/USCOURTS-ohsd-2_18-cv-01022/pdf/USCOURTS-ohsd-2_18-cv-01022-13.pdf

    • Good intentions

      Member
      November 8, 2023 at 8:02 pm

      The Stinson case is progressing along. This latest post makes it seem like a “reasonable” settlement is expected.

      Another surgeon has been introduced to the saga. This is from the Miller and Zois link above.

      Dr. Badylak is associated with a biotech company, Triad Life Sciences, Inc. https://innovamatrix.com/

      Also a professor of surgery. Interesting that he is used by Bard for defense. It would be really interesting to see actual transcripts of trial testimony.

      https://www.surgery.pitt.edu/people/stephen-badylak-dvm-phd-md

      “November 8, 2023: On Day 14 of the Stinson bellwether hernia mesh trial, Bard called brought Dr. Stephen Badylak to the stand, a witness with a history of testifying for Bard in similar cases. In a move reflective of the parties confidence in a favorable outcome, both sides have jointly filed a motion advocating for the use of a single damages’ verdict form, a measure in accordance with Maine law. This is intended to minimize confusion among jurors and reduce the risk of potential appeals or retrials due to the issue of multiple recoveries for a single harm.”

  • Good intentions

    Member
    October 31, 2023 at 8:21 am

    Follow to the post above – Dr. Grischkan is an expert witness in the case.

    “…
    October 31, 2023: Plaintiff rested his case yesterday.

    October 27, 2023: We said Dr. Grischkan was a key witness. All day yesterday was spend on his continued testimony.

    October 26, 2023: Today is Day 9 of the Stinson trial. Yesterday, the plaintiff and David Grischkan provided testiomony. Dr. Grischkan is a board certified general surgeon who specializes in the repair of abdominal wall and inguinal hernias. He is a key plaintiff’s expert on specific causation.

    Let’s take a second and recap the allegation in Stinson. The main argument from the Plaintiff is that Bard was aware of the risks associated with its PerFix Plug device but still promoted and sold it without properly warning doctors and patients.

    What was the problem? Plaintiff design defect claim contends that the PerFix Plug breaks down after being implanted, leading to a prolonged inflammatory reaction in the body. So instead of putting a warning on the product giving doctors the information they need to do a risk/benefit analysis, Bard minimized the potential complications of the device, patients at an undue risk of severe and lasting harm.

    Plaintiff’s lawyers also argue that this inflammatory reaction is exacerbated by poor design choices in the device’s shape, weight, and the size of its pores.

    October 17, 2023: The size of the Bard hernia mesh MDL actually decreased over the last month from 20,405 to 20,369 pending cases. This is the first time ever that this class action MDL has posted a monthly decrease in pending cases. What does this mean? It is difficult to say until we see if the trend continues, but this could be a sign that we are running out of possible plaintiffs.
    …”

    https://www.millerandzois.com/products-liability/hernia-mesh-case-value/

  • Good intentions

    Member
    October 31, 2023 at 8:18 am

    It appears that BD (Bard) is going to fight these cases all the way to judgment or settlement. The lawyers assumed that they would settle but it looks like they’re taking it to court. Weird how the decision coincides with the release of the Updated Guidelines which recommend mesh for the majority of patients. Just odd.

    “…
    October 31, 2023 Update
    The plaintiff concluded his case yesterday. The defendant began their defense, calling BJ J Pomerants, MD, who testifies that the plaintiff’s pre-implant injuries and conditions “affected the manner in which he perceives pain in his groin both before and after the implant surgery.” This is Bard’s classic defense of looking for someone or something to blame other than its product.

    October 26, 2023 Update
    Our prediction that Bard would come to its senses and settle Stinson did not come to pass. We are now in Day 9 of trial and we can expect the plaintiff to close his case this week.

    What are the facts in Stinson? The plaintiff had a right inguinal hernia repair using the Extra-Large PerFix Plug mesh made by the Defendants.

    Two years later, due to persistent pain in his right groin, Plaintiff had another surgery to see if the hernia had returned or if there was nerve damage.

    During this surgery, his doctor discovered a significant amount of scarring and found a “large ball” about 2.5 cm in diameter of mesh that had bundled up next to a specific bone area. Removing this mesh was challenging for his surgeon due to the extensive scarring. After removing it, her used another Bard product – the Bard Marlex Mesh – to fix the hernia.

    October 2, 2023 Update
    September was a very slow month for the CR Bard hernia mesh MDL docket. The only entry on the docket for the entire month was an Order from the MDL Judge giving the parties seven additional days to resolve a discovery dispute before the Court got involved. Meanwhile, the upcoming bellwether test trial appears to still be one for October 16th, however, and there has been a flurry of pretrial motions filed in that case.
    …”

    https://www.lawsuit-information-center.com/bard-hernia-mesh-lawsuits.html

    • herniacomps

      Member
      November 11, 2023 at 12:58 am

      Hah. Yeah good luck fighting me in court with that half assed argument. Bard can SMD.

      I was fine aside from discomfort and a minor hernia when I had a Perfix Plug placed in my groin. Developed disabling pain and neuropathy within a year until I had it expertly removed. While I’m left with some chronic pain and permanent nerve damage from confirmed entrapment and a subsequent neurectomy, I’m now on the mend, and doing tremendously better. A clean cut case that removal resolved my issue with no complex medical history other than the mesh. Thoroughly documented. I’m not the only one.

  • Good intentions

    Member
    October 11, 2023 at 12:33 pm

    I just noticed that in the PerFix case described above that the mesh was removed, “and replaced”. Incredible. The refusal to believe that the mesh alone is the problem is amazing to see. The patient still had pain with the new mesh. I wonder what the plug was replaced with.

    “…
    For 2 years after the surgery, the plaintiff had chronic pain in the area. In 2017, he underwent exploratory surgery to determine if it was a recurrent hernia or nerve entrapment causing the pain. During this procedure, the surgeon found that the Bard mesh implant had curled up into a ball, causing major scarring on the internal tissue. The mesh was removed and replaced, but the plaintiff continued to have pain.
    …”

  • Good intentions

    Member
    October 11, 2023 at 12:29 pm

    Here is a link to that other thread I had going. Just use “litigation” in the search box if the link is broken. It should be the first or second result.

    https://herniatalk.com/forums/topic/big-picture-litigation-perfix-plug/

    Big picture – Litigation – Perfix plug

    • Good intentions

      Member
      December 5, 2023 at 12:28 pm

      The latest from the Miller& Zois page, linked above.

      December 5, 2023: Georgia Settlement

      Johnson & Johnson and its subsidiary Ethicon have reached a settlement in a Georgia multidistrict litigation that involves 224 cases. This settlement was confirmed through a joint motion to dismiss the claims, which was agreed upon by both parties and approved by U.S. District Judge Richard W. Story. In response to the settlement, Ethicon Inc. underscored that it accepts no real responsibility, claiming that the decision was taken to prevent a drawn-out legal process. Of course, we are long past preventing a drawn-out process in any of these hernia mesh lawsuits.

      This recent agreement comes on the heels of a similar settlement about six months earlier, in which the companies resolved claims with 161 plaintiffs in MDL-2782.

      December 4, 2023: New Bard Lawsuit

      Bard lawsuits keep coming. On Friday, the wife of a now-deceased Oklahoma man who had the Ventralight ST filed a lawsuit directly in MDL-2846. The lawsuit – which is not a wrongful death claim – makes the usual assertions of defective design, manufacturing defect and, most importantly, failure to warn.

      This case was one of two Bard hernia mesh lawsuits filed Friday.

      • Good intentions

        Member
        December 14, 2023 at 8:18 pm

        Here is more about the J&J settlement mentioned above. Even though J&J removed Physiomesh from the market in 2016 the suits and settlement actions continued.

        It will be interesting to see how these payments continue in the future as or if new suits are filed. Once precedent is set, then each new suit has something to refer to determine an appropriate settlement. All of those seeds planted for other mesh types, and the odds are known for many. I wonder if investors are calculating the risk. Or will the public pay the settlement costs through higher insurance rates.

        Also interesting that registry data was used to show how bad Physiomesh was. It might explain the seeming resistance to registries, but it also shows their value to the public. Registry data should be made public and easily searchable.

        Physiomesh is meant for ventral hernias, but the same issues apply to inguinal hernia mesh. Ethicon has a broad portfolio of meshes designed by the same people that designed and tested Physiomesh.

        https://www.medtechdive.com/news/jj-hernia-mesh-settlement-prompts-judge-to-dismiss-more-than-200-cases/701668/

        “…

        Ethicon withdrew the products after an analysis of two independent hernia registries linked laparoscopic ventral hernia repair using Physiomesh to a higher average rate of recurrence and reoperation than a set of comparator meshes.

        …”

        • Good intentions

          Member
          December 25, 2023 at 2:36 pm

          Here is the latest from the Miller &Zois web site. 600 more cases added. That’s in three months. 200 per month. 2400 per year. Doesn’t seem sustainable financially for the parties responsible. Where is the PR department talking about how they are trying to make things better?

          “<strong style=”background-color: var(–bb-content-background-color); font-family: inherit; font-size: inherit; color: var(–bb-body-text-color);”>December 18, 2023: Bard Hernia Mesh MDL Approaches 21,000 Cases

          Back in October, the number of pending cases in the Bard hernia mesh MDL decreased for the first time ever. Since then, however, nearly 600 new cases have been added, bringing the total number of cases close to 21,000.”

          • Good intentions

            Member
            January 5, 2024 at 3:45 pm

            The plaintiff attorneys are realizing that the defendant attorneys are using delay tactics and are suggesting ways to get some cases settled.

            This is from the Miller & Zois site above. Meanwhile, every day, more of the same mesh products are being implanted. Nothing has changed.

            p.s. remember to use the backward arrow in this post to reply. Not the big red Reply button to the right. The red button will place your post randomly in the thread where it makes no sense.

            “January 4, 2024: Plaintiffs Push for More Trials

            We need more hernia mesh trials to get these cases settled. It has been too long. This litigation began in 2018. We have to turn the page in 2024.

            The plaintiff’s hernia mesh lawyers believe there is a path. They have submitted a detailed memorandum to support their request for a new Case Management Order. This order is intended to set a roadmap for what should be done to speed this process up.

            Strategy for Case Remand

            The plaintiff’s mesh attorneys are not looking for the chaos that would come with sending all of these lawsuits home to their local federal courts. Instead, they suggest a phased approach, dealing with cases in large batches. The initial phase would include about 1,500 cases, representing a fraction of the total. They also propose a plan for which hernia mesh lawsuits to push forward. The selection criteria for these cases would be based on the severity of injuries, the duration since filing, and involvement in previous bellwether trials.

            Efficiency and Justice in Trial Management

            The proposal advocates for multi-plaintiff trials, which would be more efficient and cost-effective, avoiding repetitive testimony and allowing for shared trial expenses. The unspoken part? Trials with multiple plaintiffs also put more pressure on Bard.

            So, keeping some of the structure the MDL provides, they propose that case-specific discovery should be managed under the current Court’s supervision to ensure that the cases are nearly ready for trial upon transfer to the remand courts. This plan is presented as a way to accelerate the delivery of justice for plaintiffs, ensuring that their cases are resolved in a timely manner. The judge has ordered the defendants to respond on January 10th. We should get a ruling, hopefully, by the end of the month.

            • Good intentions

              Member
              February 3, 2024 at 10:39 am

              100 more cases added in January. The Bard 3D Max case opens the door to all Bard polypropylene products since even the flat meshes fold and migrate and cause inflammation and chronic pain. I had Bard Soft Mesh, made of the same material as the Bard 3D Max. Pretty fascinating. The pipeline of lawsuits is still being fed, every day, and Medtronic appears to be fine with it. They’ll just raise their prices to cover the litigation costs, and those costs will be passed on to the insurance companies. The patients don’t seem to matter. High damages seem like the only viable way to drive change. For the patients.

              “<strong style=”background-color: var(–bb-content-background-color); font-family: inherit; font-size: inherit; color: var(–bb-body-text-color);”>February 1, 2023: 100 More Cases Added to MDL

              Nearly 100 new cases were added to the C.R. Bard hernia mesh class action in the month of January. That brings the total number of pending cases up to 21,169.

              January 15, 2024: 20,973 Cases in Bard MDL

              As we head into the new, the C.R. Bard hernia mesh class action MDL has 20,973 pending cases. It is still the largest of the hernia mesh MDLs.

              January 4, 2024: Plaintiffs Push for More Trials

              We need more hernia mesh trials to get these cases settled. It has been too long. This litigation began in 2018. We have to turn the page in 2024.

              The plaintiff’s hernia mesh lawyers believe there is a path. They have submitted a detailed memorandum to support their request for a new Case Management Order. This order is intended to set a roadmap for what should be done to speed this process up.

              Strategy for Case Remand

              The plaintiff’s mesh attorneys are not looking for the chaos that would come with sending all of these lawsuits home to their local federal courts. Instead, they suggest a phased approach, dealing with cases in large batches. The initial phase would include about 1,500 cases, representing a fraction of the total. They also propose a plan for which hernia mesh lawsuits to push forward. The selection criteria for these cases would be based on the severity of injuries, the duration since filing, and involvement in previous bellwether trials.

              Efficiency and Justice in Trial Management

              The proposal advocates for multi-plaintiff trials, which would be more efficient and cost-effective, avoiding repetitive testimony and allowing for shared trial expenses. The unspoken part? Trials with multiple plaintiffs also put more pressure on Bard.

              So, keeping some of the structure the MDL provides, they propose that case-specific discovery should be managed under the current Court’s supervision to ensure that the cases are nearly ready for trial upon transfer to the remand courts. This plan is presented as a way to accelerate the delivery of justice for plaintiffs, ensuring that their cases are resolved in a timely manner. The judge has ordered the defendants to respond on January 10th. We should get a ruling, hopefully, by the end of the month.

              …”

              https://www.millerandzois.com/products-liability/hernia-mesh-case-value/

              • Good intentions

                Member
                February 4, 2024 at 11:10 am

                This report is pretty fascinating. The defendants (Bard) are trying to pin the blame for insufficient warning on the surgeon who implanted the PerFix plug. So now it is the community of surgeons being attacked directly by the mesh makers. How will this new development play out? They have been working hand-in-hand to promote these mesh products but now the truth is coming out.

                They really need to get in to those “internal reports” that are used in the marketing brochures, and internal e-mails. Those will probably show that the mesh makers have known about these problems for many years.

                The drama continues. This is the first big trial, the current Bard 3D Max trial should have much more incriminating evidence. I hope that they find it.

                “February 1, 2024 Update

                Judge Sargus denied a motion for a new trial in Stinson yesterday.

                Bard made three real arguments and the judge rejected all three:

                1. Inadequacy of IFU: Defendants contended that the plaintiff failed to demonstrate that the IFU for the PerFix Plug was inadequate in warning about the device’s risks. They argued that the trial testimony of did not suffice to prove inadequacy in warning about the risks associated with the device. The court, however, noted that the defendants focused more on discrediting the witnesses’ conclusions rather than addressing the sufficiency of the evidence presented. The court maintained its stance from the summary judgment phase, emphasizing that it does not weigh evidence or make credibility determinations when ruling on a motion for judgment as a matter of law.
                2. Causation: Defendants argued that the plaintiff did not present sufficient evidence to show that any allegedly inadequate warning caused his injuries. They relied on the learned intermediary doctrine, asserting that their duty to warn was met since the implanting surgeon, Dr. Tan, was aware of the risks involved. Dr. Tan testified to warning the plaintiff about potential pain and nerve damage and acknowledged being aware of the risks of fibrosis, inflammation, and long-term pain. Defendants also referenced a patient education brochure warning about similar risks, suggesting Dr. Tan was informed about the risks pertinent to the case. However, the court pointed out that during the summary judgment phase, it was established that Dr. Tan expected the IFU to warn about risks specific to the PerFix Plug, like chronic pain and mesh contraction, indicating that there was a genuine issue regarding whether the warnings were adequate and whether they contributed to the plaintiff’s injuries.
                3. Failure to Warn and Negligence: The jury found for the plaintiff on the negligence claim based on failure to warn, not on design defect. Defendants tried to argue that if the plaintiff’s claims failed under a strict liability theory, they should also fail under a negligence theory. However, the court did not find this argument compelling enough to revisit its summary judgment ruling, indicating that the defendants did not present any new evidence or arguments that would lead the court to alter its previous decision.

                …”

                https://www.lawsuit-information-center.com/bard-hernia-mesh-lawsuits.html

                • Good intentions

                  Member
                  March 11, 2024 at 12:07 pm

                  Delay, delay, delay.

                  From one of the links above.

                  March 5, 2024 Update

                  Judge Sargus has issued an order outlining a mediation plan and schedule aimed at facilitating a settlement in the Bard hernia mesh MDL. The order schedules an in-person mediation session for March 25 and March 26, 2024 (it was originally scheduled earlier in the month). The mediator is John Jackson

                  If there is no settlement by May 24, 2024, the parties need so submit a plan to advance the litigation. I doubt that will be a joint plan if it comes to it. Let’s just hope these cases can get settled.

                  March 3, 2024 Update

                  There are now 21,262 filed hernia mesh lawsuits in the MDL. In terms of truly active MDLs, it ranks second only to the talc powder litigation.

                  February 20, 2024 Update

                  So the next big shot at settlement is next month. As expected, the MDL judge issued CMO #51 creating a new settlement mediation process for the litigation hernia mesh litigation.

                  The game plan is an person session set for March 4 and 5, 2024, with the possibility of additional meetings at the mediator’s discretion. (This has since been postponed. See the March 5th update above.)

                  Parties involved in the mediation must notify the court by May 24, 2024, if an impasse occurs, with a joint proposal for moving the litigation forward due by June 24, 2024. I’m assuming this means – because it has to mean – shipping these cases back to their local federal court and getting trials going.

                  The mediation will involve key representatives from both the plaintiffs and defendants, including a court-appointed mediator, John Jackson, and members of the Plaintiffs’ Negotiation Committee, alongside representatives with negotiating authority from the defendants’ side.

                  February 5, 2024 Update

                  CMO #50 came out on Friday, a new order that deals with two main issues: whether to let the Byran case go to trial – the fourth bellwether – and how to manage and possibly send back (remand) Bard hernia mesh lawsuits to their original courts for further proceedings.

                  Let’s break it down in this litigation that will never seem to end:

                  On Holding a Fourth Bellwether Trial

                  The court decided not to hold a fourth bellwether trial. The judge believes that after three trials, and considering the costs and time spent, another trial wouldn’t add much value. The cases already tried involved different legal points and devices, and another trial on a different device wouldn’t change the fundamental issues. Is this really true? The 3M earplug litigation had 16 trials. Indeed, a 5th endpoint would not be counterproductive and would keep the parties under pressure.

                  But I don’t get to make that call. The court feels it has learned enough from the previous trials and that trying a new case wouldn’t significantly change the understanding of the issues at hand.

                  The Bryan case was falling apart for the defendants because the treating doctor did not help the warnings case. So, on some level, this is a relief. But having no trial scheduled is just a path to more wheel spinning.

                  The Future Management and Structure of Potential Remand of Cases

                  The plaintiffs’ lawyers are fine with remand and want an order on how the remaining cases should be managed and sent back to the courts they came from for trial.

                  The court denied this request, calling it premature and unreasonable. The court had hoped for a global settlement (an agreement to resolve all cases) before considering mass remanding cases. The proposal was seen as favoring plaintiffs unduly by demanding very fast-paced discovery (the process of gathering evidence) and trials, which the court found unrealistic.

                  But trial dates create the pressure to settle in the first place. This litigation has been going on forever, and now the cases are supposed to be settled without the pressure of trials? The judge in this case has really done an excellent job administering this litigation. But this feels like the path to nowhere. I would love to be wrong..”

Log in to reply.