Judge in Vaginal Mesh MDL’s Orders Plaintiffs to Identify Mesh Manufacturers in Complaints

As expected, vaginal mesh lawsuits filed in federal courts have increased tremendously in the past two months in anticipation of the expiration of the statute of limitation. The number of lawsuits centralized into six multidistrict litigations (MDL) in the US District Court for the Southern District of West Virginia has in fact reached an all-time high of 36,883 lawsuits as of the first week of September. To ensure a smooth process in the filing of vaginal mesh lawsuits, Judge Goodwin issued a court order on August 29, 2013 requiring plaintiffs to name the specific product and manufacturer in their lawsuits.

 

It has come to the attention of the presiding judge that a number of complainants have submitted lawsuits in which he has termed as “shotgun complaints”. This refers to the complaints that do not mention the name of the product used in the vaginal mesh surgery as well as its manufacturer. According to Judge Goodwin, the failure to indicate the name of the manufacturer is in violation of Rule 11 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

 

Aside from violating provisions of the law, this requirement is logical since how may one claim justice without naming the alleged guilty party. It would be expecting too much to have the court or the jury identify the defendant for a certain case. It may not be entirely wrong to assume that a lawyer should know this. There is a reason why they are also called legal counsels.

 

As a case in point, all the previous cases which have been resolved by the courts complied with this requirement. In the latest case of Donna Cisson, C.R. Bard and its Bard Urological division were properly identified along with the mesh implant which is the Avaulta Plus Posterior BioSynthetic Support System. Likewise, Ethicon Inc., a division of Johnson & Johnson and manufacturer of the Gynecare Prolift Pelvic Floor Repair System was specifically named in the Linda Gross lawsuit.

 

It would indeed be a shame if a claim is dismissed due to the failure to comply with a very basic and simple requirement of the law. Any competent lawyer should be aware of this and it is within his responsibility to assist the plaintiff in getting all the relevant details. Should it become difficult for the patient to get her records from the attending physician, her lawyer may provide the assistance by exercising the legal remedies available. This situation clearly illustrates the importance of having a qualified, experienced, and sympathetic lawyer to fight for your rights.  

 

Reference:

meshmedicaldevicenewsdesk.com/latest-in-the-litigation-concerning-mesh-and-medical-devices

wvsd.uscourts.gov