U.S. District Judge Joseph Goodwin declared the mistrial last week after determining that jurors would not be able to disregard improper testimony by a plaintiff’s witness Dr. Lennox Hoyte had testified that no one implants or sells the mesh anymore. The answer was given in response to a Plaintiff’s attorney question: ‘What body of evidence exists in your opinion that supports your ideas sitting here today that Avaulta Plus armed mesh is a bad idea”. Dr. Hoyte is reported to have replied; “Here’s what I know. I take a lot of these meshes out. I know that nobody implants them anymore, and I know that no one sells them anymore.”
According to a report in the Charleston Gazette, Judge Goodwin stated: “I don’t think it’s a bell that can be unrung — and I want to say this in the context of, to my knowledge, never declaring a mistrial in a civil case in nearly 20 years on the bench — I think it would have been very difficult for the jury to disregard it.” The case is Donna Cisson vs. C.R. Bard, Inc, a 54-year-old public health nurse from Toccoa, Georgia, who was inserted in 2009. She contends she has suffered injuries and required two surgeries to repair the damage.
In his opening statement, one of Plaintiff’s attorneys told the jury
- Bard knew of the risks associated with Bard Avaulta transvaginal mesh and failed to inform doctors.
- Bard did not do clinical testing or studies to learn the risks of Bard Avaulta transvaginal mesh.
- Bard did not study how to remove Bard Avaulta transvaginal mesh.
- Bard marketed and sold Bard Avaulta transvaginal mesh despite knowing the material used to make it, Marlex, was not designed to implant in the human body.
- Bard did not tell doctors that Bard Avaulta transvaginal mesh was not fit for human use.
“The company knew in 2002 and 2003 that synthetic vaginal mesh could cause significant erosion of the patient’s tissues, and infection.”
However, Lori Cohen gave the jury a different view on behalf of Bard. In her opening statement, Ms. Cohen created a picture of the evolution of surgical transvaginal mesh that runs contrary to the image of mesh manufacturers dispatching a legion of sales rep to push doctors to start using polypropylene (PP) mesh in the late 1990’s and early 2000.
Click here to read the full article: Bard Opening Arguments in Federal Transvaginal Mesh Case
Over 12,000 women who have filed suits detailing their injuries from the mesh inserted in them. We believe that ultimately the cause of their injuries will be shown to be the defects in the mesh products and the absence of appropriate warnings. If you would like more information, check the video below, go to our website, or contact us at 1-800-481-1615 or email us.