The first vaginal implant case has gone to trial, and the verdict is out. The victim, Christine Scott, was awarded $5,000,000; and her husband was awarded $500,000.
Christine Scott, along with her husband, sued C.R. Bard after their vaginal implant device caused permanent organ damage. In addition to Scott’s loss of consortium and products liability claims, she is also claiming that she is incontinent, and currently suffers from chronic pain resulting from this defective implant. Scott also sued the doctor who implanted this defective device back in 2008.
These lawsuits involve the Murray Hill, New Jersey-based Bard, Boston Scientific Corp, as well as other companies that have led to organ damage similar to Scott’s.
A month ago, Johnson & Johnson’s Ethicon unit announced termination of four lines of their vaginal mesh devices, which leads some to question why the FDA isn’t stepping in to prevent others from becoming permanently injured as a result of faulty vaginal implant devices.
Exactly a year ago, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) released a report that stated vaginal-mesh products should be classified as high-risk products, based on a review of side-effect reports between January 2008 and December 2010.
In January, the FDA forced 31 manufacturers to study the rates of organ damage linked to vaginal-mesh implants. Sure enough, both Bard and Johnson & Johnson were included in this study. All thirty-one companies must yield three years of safety studies, which is around the time when many women reported that the device has either eroded or shrank over time, leading to injuries.
Since the Scott’s used a products liability claim, the verdict would allot fault percentages to all parties involved. C.R. Bard, the manufacturer, was 60% liable, and the doctor who performed the implant surgery was 40% liable.
What do you think about these findings? Would you still elect to have vaginal mesh implant surgery after hearing of this news?
