Bard wins 3DMax hernia mesh appeal

Bard wins 3DMax hernia mesh appeal

Category: Hernia Mesh

More Info: Defective Medical Devices

The New Jersey Superior Court’s Appellate Division this week tossed a win to C.R. Bard, refusing to reinstate a hernia mesh product liability lawsuit on grounds that expert witnesses couldn’t prove the design of the product was defective or that significant negligence occurred.

In the case, plaintiff Kemuel Goodson claims that implantation of Bard’s 3DMax polypropylene mesh during a laparoscopic bilateral inguinal hernia repair in 2006 caused a number of different complications, including remaining pain and the removal of a testicle, and required a number of future procedures.

In his original suit, the plaintiff asserted claims of defective design, negligence and fraud and misrepresentation.

Bard moved for a summary judgment, which was granted, and the plaintiff appealed, claiming the court “erred in granting summary judgment to the defendant on the plaintiff’s claims of design defect and negligence,” according to court documents.

After review, expert testimony from the plaintiffs’ three expert witnesses was not found to meet the requirements for claims of defectiveness, the three-judge appellate panel decided.

“In the instant case, none of the experts specifically opined that 3DMax is defective and that this defective design caused the medical complications complained of by the plaintiff. Instead, the plaintiff’s three experts gave general opinions about the various medical risks of the product that can cause complications. This is not enough to overcome the summary judgment standard,” the three-judge appellate panel wrote. “In addition, no expert presented an alternative, feasible design for the 3DMax. As previously stated, this is one of the determining factors in a defective design case.”

The dismissal of the negligence claims was also affirmed, with the court saying that to establish such a claim, the plaintiff must show that the “defendant had a duty to warn, that the defendant breached that duty and that the preach proximately caused the plaintiff’s injury,” according to court documents.

The operating surgeon previously testified that while he wasn’t specifically informed of some complications associated with the hernia mesh, he was aware of those possible side effects associated with meshes in general, including those experienced by the plaintiff.

“Notwithstanding, Dr. Middleton testified he went over the risks of the mesh surgery with the plaintiff prior to the surgery, including the risk of chronic pain, numbness, hematoma, and mesh infection,” the panel wrote. “As plaintiff’s physician, Dr. Middleton was serving in the role of a learned intermediary. Despite the doctor’s decision to not read the manufacturer’s warnings, that decision does not alter his learned intermediary role nor does it impose liability on defendants for failure to warn.”

Continue reading...

See the full, original post here:

TriMark Legal Funding was founded in 2003 and is one of America's original lawsuit funding companies. TriMark provides pre-settlement funding and post-settlement funding to injured plaintiffs who are involved in personal injury lawsuits, employment litigation, work injury accidents and workers compensation lawsuits, mass tort litigation, and multidistrict litigation. We also provide post-settlement funding for attorneys and law firm loans.

 Other Mass Tort Litigation Other Multidistrict Litigation

Click here to see the original article.

* Word-Use Disclaimer

Legal funding is not a loan. It is the non-recourse purchase of an equitable lien in a plaintiffs’ legal claim. Words such as ‘loans,’ ‘lender,’ 'interest', ‘borrower,’ and phrases such as 'lawsuit loans' and 'settlement loans' are used for relatability, search, and marketing purposes only.
More info

TriMark Legal Funding LLC
1056 Green Acres Rd #102
Eugene, OR 97408