Boston Scientific Corporation prevailed this week in the first of potentially thousands of trials concerning its pelvic mesh implant device after a Massachusetts jury rejected Diane Albright’s suit against the company. The decision in Albright v Boston Scientific, among the first wave of trials in pelvic mesh actions nationwide, bucks an early trend of verdicts against manufacturers.
According to the suit, Albright had Boston’s Scientific’s Pinnacle pelvic mesh device surgically implanted in 2010 to treat bladder prolapse. The device ultimately eroded, which Albright contended caused her severe pain and medical complications. However, the jury ultimately found against Albright’s defective design and failure-to-warn claims.
The case is one of more than 1,000 Massachusetts pelvic mesh suits against Boston Scientific. Nationwide, Boston Scientific and six other pelvic mesh manufacturers, including C.R. Bard Inc. and Johnson & Johnson’s Ethicon Endo-Surgery Inc., face more than 25,000 state suits over their pelvic mesh devices. Additionally, more than 25,000 federal suits have been consolidated in West Virginia as part of federal multidistrict litigation.
The Albright decision is one of the first jury verdicts in favor of a pelvic mesh manufacturer. Late last month, a New Jersey Superior Court upheld an $11.1 million verdict in Linda Gross v. Ethicon, one of the state’s bellwether pelvic mesh cases. The month-long trial, recorded by CVN, led to a jury finding that Ethicon misrepresented its product and failed to warn Gross’s physician of its risks. Additionally, a Texas jury in April awarded Linda Batiste $1.2 million in her pelvic mesh suit against Ethicon and its parent Johnson & Johnson.