Here are the figures quoted:

• Up to 39.1 per cent of women suffer nerve injuries from instruments used during prolapse repairs.
• Up to 29.4 per cent of women suffer vascular injury and bleeding during insertion of a TVT mesh sling.
• Up to 23.8 per cent of women suffer organ perforation and injury from TVT insertion.
• Up to 5.3 per cent of women suffer nerve damage and pain from TVT insertion.

Also cited is a Canadian Study stating that the injury rate could be 15%.  It is important to note that there are different injuries listed here and this article is referencing the TVT Insertion injuries.  This differs from traumatic injuries such as erosion of the mesh requiring a revision or removal surgery.

In a JAMA September 2015 a study was reported that showed that 1 in 30 women may need a revision or removal surgery at the 10 year mark after having a vaginal mesh surgery.

To find out if you have a case relating to removal or revision surgery, please visit our in depth Transvaginal mesh page.

Source:  Wisbech Standard

The post Transvaginal Mesh Injuries as High as 40% appeared first on burke-eisner.com.

Citizens United and SpeechNow.org

Almost seven years ago, two federal court cases, one decided by the US Supreme Court and one in a US Court of Appeals ruling, restructured federal election campaign contributions, gave birth to the Super PAC, and laid the foundation for the 2016 election cycle’s unprecedented campaign spending. Citizens United and SpeechNOW.org together defined the freedom of corporations and unions to raise unlimited funds and then spend those funds on the production and distribution of election-related communications independent of a specific political party or candidate’s campaign.

During the 2008 presidential election cycle, Citizens United, a nonprofit corporation, sought the right to fund, produce, and market an independent film critical of Hillary Clinton in the lead-up to the 2008 primaries. The Federal Election Commission prohibited the marketing or airing of the film in accordance with the 2002 Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act (BCRA) and its federal ban of spending for election-related communication that mentions a particular candidate by a corporation or union within 30 days prior to a federal primary. Citizens United objected to the FEC’s ruling. They found it to be hypocritical considering the FEC had allowed the marketing and airing of Michael Moore’s film, Fahrenheit 9/11 in 2004 over Citizens United’s objections at the time. In light of their objections, Citizens United decided to take their case against the Federal Election Commission to federal court.

The initial question before the Court was simply whether or not Citizens United should have been permitted to market and air their film during the 2008 primaries. Arguments were heard in March of 2009 and initial decision and dissent documents were drafted, but during that process Justice Kennedy suggested that the Court’s ruling ought to extend beyond Citizens United and their one film to address larger issues with BCRA and federal campaign finance reform. Justice Stevens and Souter objected that the Court was attempting to govern from the bench. The internal debate triggered a reargument of the case in September of 2009 and a marked expansion of the specific questions presented to the Court.

The Supreme Court issued its 5-4 ruling in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission in January of 2010. In Justice Kennedy’s majority decision, the Court ruled that all corporations and unions, to include non-profits, are entitled to spend funds on election-related communications in any form, at any point in an election cycle, as these methods of communication are protected by the First Amendment’s free speech provisions. The majority opinion stated that BCRA permitted Congress and the federal government to unconstitutionally censor political, election-related speech by corporations or unions. Furthermore, Justice Kennedy wrote that the only way a corporation could ensure its ability to speak freely about its political position was to spend money on producing and disseminating their message. Therefore, any limit on the corporation’s election communication fundraising or budget was a limit on free speech, itself. The Court was careful to ensure the ruling did not in any way affect the existing ban on federal campaign contributions by corporations and unions to an individual campaign or specific political party. The ruling also continued to uphold disclosure requirements for the sponsors of all election-related communications.

Justice Stevens, who authored the dissent, argued that the Court had opened the door to allowing corporations to bully federal elected officials with the threat of exercising their right to secure enormous funding for unlimited attack ads. He thoroughly chastised the majority for equating legal entities like corporations with the people of the United States, themselves, saying that granting free speech rights to non-persons would inevitably warp the public discourse around federal elections and eventually undermine the populace’s confidence in their own democracy.

Three months later, a non-profit organization called SpeechNOW.org challenged federal limits on the contributions they could receive to fund independent expenditures during an election cycle. Independent expenditures are expenses that fund election-related communications that are not made with the help or support of a specific candidate’s campaign or political party. It is independent expenditures, or IEs, that fund the sorts of communications Citizens United deemed constitutionally protected by the right to free speech.

In SpeechNOW.org v. Federal Election Commission, a US Court of Appeals relied heavily on the Supreme Court’s Citizens United ruling and unanimously struck down federal limits on contributions to federal political committees. Citizens United and SpeechNOW.org combined also to allow corporations and unions to make unlimited donations to any independent expenditure-only organization. The two federal cases together gave way to the meteoric rise and incredible power of the Super PAC in the federal election cycles to follow.

Thanks to Citizens United and SpeechNOW.org, political action committees (PACs) may now receive unlimited donations from individuals, corporations, or unions and spend them on any election-related communication material they please. This produced an incredible explosion of independent federal campaign spending which more than doubled in the wake of these two judicial rulings. During the 2008 election cycle, outside spending by organizations independent of a specific campaign or political party reached a little over 300 million dollars. By the next presidential election cycle in 2012, two years after the Citizens United & SpeechNOW.org rulings, outside spending skyrocketed to approximately 1.3 billion dollars. The 2016 federal election cycles saw that amount grow to almost 1.5 billion dollars, 1.1 billion of that being spent by Super PACs alone.

Citizens United opened the door to unlimited amplification of the wealthiest voices in the public forum. Many of the donations funding these now unrestrained Super PAC budgets involve hundreds of thousands and even millions of dollars in contributions from the nation’s most wealthy citizens.

Now that Citizens United is the law of the land, it will most likely take nothing short of a constitutional amendment to reign in the unbridled power of the Super PACs and their unlimited independent expenditures.

The post The Change that Citizens United and SpeechNow.org brought to the Election System appeared first on burke-eisner.com.

I read this article (link below) and what struck me about was the description about how these surgeries used to be done.  Years ago the surgery was done with parts of the body used as the sling material.

The surgery involved opening the abdomen and creating a sling out of other parts of the patient’s body or sometimes a surgical material. Each surgeon had a personal technique, which “made the operation fit the patient, not the patient the operation,”

We went from surgery that worked well and was designed for the particular patient to an assembly line type of product that would basically fit all.

Now after hundred’s of thousands of surgeries these companies face tens of thousands of lawsuits.  Women all over the world are also trying to have these implants removed.

Read More Here:  http://www.rep-am.com/lifestyle/health/846699.txt

The post Bladder Sling Removal appeared first on burke-eisner.com.

They found POP repair with mesh rose from 21% in 2008 to 30% in 2011.

This, despite the thousands of lawsuits filed around the country in courts like West Virginia, Philadephia, and Boston.  The study went on to note that while not common, surgical intervention was more common in those women who had mesh tan in those that did not.

mesh recipients were more likely than non-mesh recipients to have a reintervention within 1 year and to have urinary retention within 90 days.

The article is at:  Urology Times

The Study can be seen at: The BMJ

The post Bladder Mesh use on the Rise appeared first on burke-eisner.com.

“I can’t imagine a corporation facing potentially billions of dollars in verdicts wouldn’t find it advisable to try to achieve a settlement for a much lesser sum,” U.S. District Judge Joseph Goodwin in Charleston, West Virginia, said at a Dec. 9 hearing, according to a transcript. “I base that billions of dollars business on some of the rather large verdicts that we’ve had.”

In my own experience, I dont remember a time when a judge has done this. It has probably happened. There are always conversations like this that take place between lawyers and judges.  Meetings take place in preparation for court trials all the time.  It doesn’t surprise me that a judge would reach out to both parties and encourage them to sit down and talk.

That said it is interesting to me that this is done on the record in court and not just in chambers.

Source:  Claims Journal

The post Judge Says — Settle Before Juries Award Billions in Bladder Sling cases appeared first on burke-eisner.com.

The second came from a West Virginia trial court this last week and it resulted in an $18 million verdict for several women.

One of the more significant things that comes out of this is the fact that the compensatory damages, those that relate to the actual harm that people have suffered, were significant numbers.  This is significant because they jury awards were not mostly made up of punitive damages.  Punitive damages are designed for punishing the defendant to deter bad activity.

When the damages are mostly compensatory then they are harder to overturn on appeal.

If you have a potential claim, then contact us on this page or at bladder mesh lawsuits.

For more information on the recent verdict. http://www.chicagotribune.com/sns-wp-blm-news-bc-bsx20-20141120-story.html

The post Two more verdicts against Boston Scientific appeared first on burke-eisner.com.

As expected this is helpful to plaintiffs all over who may have claims against not only Boston Scientific but also other bladder sling manufacturers.  What these verdicts (both positive and negative) do is create an idea on what companies and plaintiffs can expect when and if their cases go to trial.  It helps establish what the risk is for both sides.

More cases will go to trial.  In fact there is another in trial now in West Virginia.

Eventually most of these cases will likely settle.  For what amount?  We dont know yet, but each and every one of these trials does move everyone closer to that potential settlement.

The post Bladder Sling Verdict $26.7 Million Against Boston Scientific appeared first on burke-eisner.com.

Here are some fo the major mesh settlements that have been made public.

Endo (AMS) $830 Million.  April 2014 (Estimates 20,000 cases)

Endo International Plc said Wednesday it has agreed to pay $830 million to resolve legal claims from women who say they were injured by transvaginal mesh devices.

http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/04/30/endo-mesh-settlement-idUSL2N0NM2V820140430

Coloplast $16 Million (400 cases)   March 2014

Officials of Humlebaek, Denmark-based Coloplast agreed in January to resolve about 400 suits over the inserts, which are designed to support internal organs, said the people, who asked not to be identified because they weren’t authorized to speak publicly about the settlement. The accord will provide an average payment of about $40,000 for each claimant, they said.

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2014-03-04/coloplast-said-to-pay-16-million-to-settle-mesh-lawsuits.html

Endo (AMS) $55 Million June 2013

An Endo Health Solutions (ENDP) Inc. unit agreed to pay $54.5 million to settle some lawsuits alleging its vaginal-mesh implants eroded in some women and left them incontinent and in pain.

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-06-21/endo-health-unit-pays-55-million-in-vaginal-mesh-accord.html

Bard

There is a report that Bard has settled 500 lawsuits relating to pelvic mesh and bladder mesh claims.  There is very little information out there on this subject.

Summary

In addition to the above list,  there have been a number of small settlements of cases that have reached trial or been very close to trial.  A number of those have settled.  We assume that because they were removed from teh trial dockets.  these settlements are almost always covered by a confidentiality agreement so information is hard to get when it come to specifc mesh case settlement numbers.

The post Bladder Mesh Settlements (Summary) appeared first on burke-eisner.com.

There will be more details to come for sure.  The case involves a lady who alleged nerve damage and had to undergo 4 additional surgeries to remove mesh.

Some more information on this case.  This is the first case against Boston Scientific to be successful. Another case in Massachusetts recently resulted in a verdict for the defendant.

In this case it appears that Ms. Salazar was significantly injured by this bladder mesh.  She has nerve damge and had to undergo 4 surgeries to attemtp to repair the damage she suffered internally.

The jury also determined that the company’s handling of the bladder slings was grossly negligent.  This is what allowed them to award punitive damages.

Here is a NY Times Article for more information.

http://www.nytimes.com/reuters/2014/09/09/us/09reuters-bostonscientific-mesh-verdict.html?hp&action=click&pgtype=Homepage&version=WireFeed&module=pocket-region%C2%AEion=pocket-region&WT.nav=pocket-region&_r=1

The post $72 Million Verdict Against Boston Scientific in Texas Court appeared first on burke-eisner.com.

In a Federal Court in West Virginia, a jury has returned a verdict against Johnson & Johnson for $3.2 Millionin damages. It appears the jury found the company liable for a faulty design and failing to warn patients that the product can cause injuries such as infection, bleeding and pain.

This is a developing story and more information will come out.

It is the second case to have gone to trial against J&J in West Virginia. In the first case the jury found for the defendant and awarded no damages.

Johnson and Johnson also had a $11 million verdict against it in New Jersey and a $1.2 million verdict against it in Texas during the last year.

The post Johnson & Johnson (Ethicon) hit with a $3.2 Million Verdict appeared first on burke-eisner.com.