Photo of Professionals at the Brandi Law Firm.

We Are Here To Help You Through Your Most Difficult Times

  1. Home
  2.  – 
  3. Drug and Medical Device Litigation
  4.  – Dallas Jury Awards $73 Million TVM Verdict against Boston Scientific

Dallas Jury Awards $73 Million TVM Verdict against Boston Scientific

| Sep 10, 2014 | Drug and Medical Device Litigation, Transvaginal Mesh

In the first victory for plaintiffs against Boston Scientific Corp. and their mesh devices, a Dallas, Texas jury found for the plaintiff Martha Salazar and ordered Boston Scientific to pay a staggering $73 million.  Jurors found Boston Scientific to be at fault for the damages that Ms. Salazar suffered as well as a finding of gross negligence, awarding punitive damages to the plaintiff.  The jury awarded approximately $23 million in compensatory damages for her actual and future suffering and $50 million in punitive damages after finding the company was grossly negligent.  (Salazar v. Lopez, District Court for Dallas County, No. DC-12-14349).

Salazar, was implanted with an Obtryx sling on January 17, 2011 by Dr. Jorge Lopez to treat urinary leakage.  As a result of the alleged defective device, Salazar suffered from permanent nerve damage, constant pelvic pain, and had to endure four subsequent surgeries.

Click here to read the full Reuters article: Boston Scientific Ordered to Pay $73 million Over Mesh Device

Boston Scientific plans to appeal the verdict.

The verdict is the third case to go to trial against Boston Scientific over their devices.  The first two, tried in Massachusetts, resulted in verdicts absolving the company of liability.

Vaginal Mesh Trial History

Bard has lost two jury trials, settled a third case after a jury selected, and settled a fourth before trial commenced.  In July 2012, a California jury awarded Christine Scott and her husband $5.5 million after she underwent nine revision surgeries.  Scott sued C.R. Bard in 2009 over its Avaulta Plus mesh product.

In February 2013, Linda Gross won $11.11 million in her lawsuit against Johnson & Johnson’s Ethicon brand over its Prolift vaginal mesh product.  Gross had 18 surgeries.  The New Jersey jury found that J&J failed to warn patients and doctors about the risks of its mesh products and made fraudulent misrepresentations.

On August 15, 2013, after about 12 hours of deliberation, the jury found for Donna Cisson in her vaginal mesh trial against manufacturer C.R. Bard Inc, and found damages in the amount of $250,000 and $1.75 million in punitive damages.  The jury found that Bard failed to provide adequate warnings as to the defects in its vaginal mesh product and that the device was defective.  Judge Joseph Goodwin upheld the 2 million verdict in October 2013 as appropriate and that Cisson’s attorneys proved the company’s vaginal mesh was the cause of her injuries.  In Queen vs. Bard, starting trial immediately after Cisson, a settlement was reached after the jury was selected.  Finally, Bard settled Melanie Virgil’s claims that Bard’s Avaulta Plus insert caused urinary problems before trial commenced in New Jersey.

On February 18, 2014, Judge Joseph Goodwin granted Ethicon’s Motion for Directed Verdict at the close of Plaintiff’s case in Lewis vs. Ethicon, Inc. (In Re: Ethicon, Inc., Pelvic Repair System Products Liability Litigation, MDL Docket No. 2327, Carolyn Lewis, et al. v. Johnson & Johnson, et al., No. 2:12-4301, S.D. W.Va.).

On April 4, 2014, a Dallas jury found for the plaintiff Linda Batiste and ordered Johnson & Johnson to pay $1.2 million for its defective design of the Ethicon TVT-O pelvic mesh.

Two Massachusetts juries recently rejected women’s claims that Boston Scientific’s incontinence sling was defective designed and injured women.

On September 5, 2014, a federal jury in West Virginia found for the plaintiff Jo Huskey and ordered Johnson & Johnson’s Ethicon to pay $3.27 million.

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.


Trademark Notice

Boston Scientific is a registered trademark of Boston Scientific Corp. The use of this trademark is solely for product identification and informational purposes. Boston Scientific Corp. is not affiliated with this website, and Boston Scientific Corp. has no affiliation with The Brandi Law Firm. Nothing on this site has been authorized or approved by Boston Scientific Corp.