Skip to main content

What Happened In The MassTorts World Last Week? 2020-Aug-17

Covidien Mesh Products Lawsuits Centralization Rejected

A motion filed by the manufacturer of Covidien hernia mesh products asking for consolidation was rejected by the U.S. Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation (JPML), indicating that the few pending federal cases don't justify formal coordination.

Covidien, a subsidiary of Medtronic, filed the motion for centralization in June, stating that it believed the number of cases filed would rise in the coming weeks and months. However, some plaintiffs opposed the move calling it premature. The plaintiffs also asserted that the consolidation would unnecessarily delay proceedings in cases that have already advanced significantly through discovery. The JPML sided with the plaintiffs and rejected the motion by issuing an Order Denying Transfer on August 7.

The manufacturer, who covers about 20% share of the hernia mesh market, maintained that the claims are without merit, and expected the number of lawsuits to grow considering other similar cases involving hernia mesh products.

At least 12 different product liability lawsuits have been filed by plaintiffs who received Covidien Parietex and other similar products. A panel of federal judges in the order noted that there are alternatives to centralization available, which are sufficient to avoid duplication during pretrial proceedings.

Centralization has been established in the federal court system for other hernia mesh lawsuits, which include Bard polypropylene mesh lawsuits, Ethicon Physiomesh lawsuits, and Atrium C-Qur mesh lawsuits. The Covidien hernia mesh lawsuits will continue to proceed as individual claims through the federal court system for the time being.

Earlier, on June 26, the JMPL issued a Notice Of Hearing Session, indicating that a panel of federal judges will be hearing oral arguments this month over the consolidation of Covidien hernia mesh lawsuits, which is favored by the manufacturers but opposed by some plaintiffs.

Last month, the manufacturer of Covidien hernia mesh products filed a Motion For Transfer with the U.S. Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation (JPML), asking to establish fifth multidistrict litigation (MDL), following a rise in the number of lawsuits over the products. The motion indicated that at least 12 cases are pending in nine different federal district courts.

According to the notice issued, a videoconference has been scheduled for July 30 to hear oral arguments for and against the consolidation of the lawsuits.

Covidien Parietex is manufactured and sold by a subsidiary of Medtronic, Inc. Plaintiffs using the device have alleged that design defects associated with Covidien Parietex and other products resulted in painful and debilitating complications, leading to revision surgery for removal of the product.

The consolidation is supported by some plaintiffs, whereas some are against the move, stating it is premature to predict the rise in the number of claims or indicating establishing an MDL would unnecessarily delay proceedings that have already proceeded significantly through discovery.

The mesh products named in the lawsuits contain polypropylene material, which can easily break, shrink or wear off. This often leads to device migration, organ perforation, infection, and several other complications. Lawsuits allege the defective design of the hernia mesh often required the patients to undergo additional correction surgeries.

The MDL, if formed, would join similarly centralized proceedings over Atrium C-Qur, Ethicon Physiomesh, Bard Polypropylene Mesh, and Kugel Patches.

 

Profemur Hip Implant Cases Consolidated In Arkansas

Lawsuits alleging Wright Medical Technology Inc. and MicroPort Orthopedics Inc. over defective hip implants have been consolidated in the Eastern District of Arkansas by the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation (JPML).

The proposal for consolidation was filed on May 18, by the plaintiffs involved in the hip replacement lawsuits to help avoid duplicative discovery, prevent contradictory rulings from different judges, and serve the convenience of the parties, witnesses, and the courts.

The manufacturers opposed the consolidation asserting that the cases are attempting on diverse theories of liability and are at different stages. They also said that the consolidation is unnecessary, as they have already voluntarily formed methods for streamlining discovery in similar suits and have consolidated the suits in separate state-based proceedings.

According to the federal docket dated August 7, the panel assigned the cases to U.S. District Judge Kristine G. Baker under MDL No. 2949 and said that the actions involve common questions of fact, and centralization will serve the convenience of the parties and witnesses.

Nearly 47 cases are pending in 25 different U.S. District Courts against the manufacturers, each claiming that plaintiffs suffered complications after the Profemur total hip implant modular femoral neck coupled with a modular titanium Profemur femoral stem were used together in a total hip replacement system.

Other manufacturers, including DePuy Synthes, Zimmer Biomet, and Stryker Corporation, are also facing similar lawsuits against their hip implants. Several hip implants have been recalled due to their design defects and rising number of lawsuits.

 

Biocell Breast Implant Manufacturer Seeks To Dismiss Suits

Allergan, Inc. filed a motion on August 7 in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey involving its Biocell textured breast implant, seeking dismissal of lawsuits on pre-emption grounds, claiming that the company should not be held liable over the failure to warn claims.

The company contends that the lawsuits brought under state laws impermissibly challenge the design, manufacture, labeling, and post-sale reporting for the FDA-approved devices. However, the federal regulators are investigating the reason behind rare cancer in the tissue surrounding certain breast implants.

The motion asserts that the company should be immune from the claims as the FDA’s review of medical devices is exhaustive enough to allow it to escape responsibility for risks associated with the device, even when the manufacturer knew or should have known about the problems.

Lawsuits against Allergan Biocell breast implants are rising in numbers, following the nationwide recall. Each lawsuit has a similar allegation that the textured surface of the implant may increase the risk of a rare type of cancer in the tissue surrounding it, known as breast implant-associated anaplastic large cell lymphoma (BIA-ALCL).

In June, the parent company of Allergan, AbbVie Inc., announced to launch a new awareness campaign to inform women implanted with the recalled Allergan Natrelle Biocell breast implants, who might be unaware of the risks associated.

Currently, Allergan faces at least 150 product liability lawsuits and class action lawsuits over breast implant cancer problems. The lawsuits have been consolidated to form multidistrict litigation (MDL) before U.S. District Judge Brian R. Martinotti in the District of New Jersey under MDL No.: 2921. Also, lawsuits filed in New Jersey are consolidated as part of multicounty litigation (MCL) in the New Jersey Superior Court for Bergen County, where the claims will be presided by Judge Rachelle Harz for coordinated discovery and pretrial proceedings.

Earlier, on June 8, Acting Administrative Director of the Courts, Glenn A. Grant, issued a Notice To The Bar, stating that all Allergan Biocell breast implant lawsuits filed in New Jersey will be consolidated as part of multicounty litigation (MCL) in the New Jersey Superior Court for Bergen County, where the claims will be presided by Judge Rachelle Harz for coordinated discovery and pretrial proceedings.

Breast implants are used in both breast augmentation surgery (to increase the breast size) and in breast reconstruction (to replace breast tissue that has been removed due to cancer or trauma or that has failed to develop properly due to a severe breast abnormality).

Allergan Inc.’s breast implants include saline and silicone devices used in breast augmentation and reconstruction. The company is one of the largest breast implant manufacturers in the world and started selling breast implants in 2006. Allergan’s flagship breast implant brand is Natrelle, but it also sells implants under its subsidiaries Inamed and McGhan. The manufacturer received approval from the U.S Food & Drug Administration (FDA) on 11/17/2006.

The popular product, its textured implants, is linked to a rare type of cancer called breast implant-associated anaplastic large cell lymphoma, or BIA-ALCL. The disease is a type of non-Hodgkin lymphoma. 

The consolidation of the cases is designed to reduce duplicative discovery into common issues in the cases, avoid conflicting pretrial schedules from different judges, and serve the convenience of the common parties, witnesses, and the judicial system.

The MCL works similarly to the federal multidistrict litigation (MDL) but at the state-court level. The cases will continue as individual lawsuits, where the judge would schedule a series of early test trials known as bellwether cases. If no settlement is reached through the bellwether process, then the cases will eventually be tried as individual claims in the New Jersey state court system.

Last year, the U.S. Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation (JPML) consolidated the Allergan Biocell lawsuits in the Federal court system before U.S. District Judge Brian R. Martinotti in the District of New Jersey under MDL No. 2921.

Lawsuits against Allergan Biocell breast implants are rising in numbers, following the nationwide recall. Each lawsuit has a similar allegation that the textured surface of the implant may increase the risk of a rare type of cancer in the tissue surrounding it, which is now known as breast implant-associated anaplastic large cell lymphoma (BIA-ALCL).

Recently, the parent company of Allergan, AbbVie Inc., announced to launch a new awareness campaign to inform women implanted with their recalled Allergan Natrelle Biocell breast implants, who might be unaware of the risks associated.

Our Legal Drafting Services    
start @ $25 per hour.