On Wednesday, Maria Cardenas detailed the pain and medical complications she claims stemmed from the erosion of a pelvic mesh sling inside her body, concluding plaintiff’s case-in-chief in Massachusetts’s second trial against Boston Scientific and its pelvic mesh devices. Maria Cardenas v. Boston Scientific Corp.

Cardenas, who underwent pelvic mesh surgery in 2008, described pain and other health issues she said began more than a year-and-a-half after the mesh sling was implanted, and told jurors she wasn’t aware of the risks the procedure entailed.

“I did not appreciate how bad the mesh could harm me and cause permanent damage to my urethra,” she said.

Cardenas’s suit claims Boston Scientific’s Obtryx pelvic mesh device was defectively designed and that the company failed to adequately warn of its risks. The suit is one of more than 50,000 pelvic mesh actions against manufacturers nationwide. The suits typically allege that the mesh erodes into tissue, causing pain, infection, and other medical complications. In July, Boston Scientific prevailed in Massachusetts’s first trial involving the company's pelvic mesh devices. However, that suit involved a different product than the one at issue in Cardenas.

Cardenas testified on Wednesday that her surgeon implanted Boston Scientific’s device to treat her stress urinary incontinence. She said she began suffering from pain more than a year later and underwent a hysterectomy before doctors discovered the mesh’s erosion. Her physician, Dr. Lane Childs, ultimately removed most of the sling, though she said he told her that portions of the mesh could not be removed.

“I’m scared,” she said. “I don’t know if that could have any more complications, what kind of complications…. I just don’t want to go through any more surgeries.”

However, on cross examination, defense counsel sought to establish Cardenas's informed consent to the pelvic sling surgery and its risks. Cardenas acknowledged that, prior to surgery, she had signed a consent form that warned of a variety of complications, including reactions requiring the removal of the device. However, Cardenas testified that she could not recall actually discussing or reading specific warnings about the procedure.

Cardenas also told jurors that Childs, was “very surprised” that the pelvic mesh eroded. Cardenas acknowledged earlier deposition testimony where she said Childs “mentioned he’d had 100% success with his surgeries, and I was just that 1%.”

Related Information

View live and on-demand video of Maria Cardenas v. Boston Scientific Corp.

On Tuesday, CVN will begin live coverage of the second bellwether suit against Boston Scientific and its pelvic mesh products in Massachusetts. Maria Cardenas v. Boston Scientific Corp.

Marietta, GA—An action to rescind a reported $5 million settlement and renew a wrongful death suit against General Motors over a defective vehicle ignition switch will move forward, after a Cobb County State Court Judge rejected defense arguments in their motion to dismiss.

In an unusual Saturday morning hearing, Judge Kathryn J. Tanksley said she would deny a motion to dismiss in Melton v. General Motors after rejecting GM’s contention that the suit was barred by res judicata.

Kenneth and Mary Elizabeth Meltons’ daughter Brooke died in 2010 after her Chevrolet Cobalt struck an oncoming vehicle. The Meltons sued GM and auto dealership Thornton Chevrolet, contending that a faulty GM ignition switch in Brooke’s car shut off its engine while she was driving, causing her to lose control of the vehicle. They settled the claim against GM last year for a reported $5 million. GM subsequently recalled more than 2 million cars over the ignition switch defect. The Meltons then filed to rescind the settlement and renew their claims and argued that GM had lied to them in discovery and concealed knowledge of the defective ignition switch for years. At Saturday's hearing, Lance Cooper, representing the Meltons, contrasted video deposition of GM engineer Ray DeGiorgio's knowledge concerning the defective ignition switch design with subsequent, conflicting evidence in a Congressional inquiry concerning the faulty switches.

However, Brian Sieve, representing GM, argued that, regardless of the fraud claims, the Meltons' current action was barred by res judicata. Sieve contended that the Meltons should have moved to set aside the judgment in the initial action before filing a new complaint.

In a sometimes pointed exchange, Judge Tanksley rejected GM’s contention and said she believed that Georgia law, including the state's law of rescission, did not require the Meltons to submit a formal motion to set aside the prior judgement. Giving “effect to the law and public policy… would be to put the parties back where they originally were and that all has to be played out properly,” Judge Tanksley said. “I don’t think, at this stage, a motion to dismiss can be granted on res judicata.”

Discovery in the action is now slated to proceed, with responses due August 26.

Related Information

Read CVN to Cover Saturday Dismissal Hearing in Georgia Wrongful Death Suit Alleging Faulty GM Ignition Switch.

View a clip of Judge Tanskley questioning one of GM's attorneys.

View the full hearing on the Proceedings page.

In the first day of trial, opposing counsel painted different narratives of Dale Moyer, the long-time smoker at the heart of Heather Irimi, et al. v. R. J. Reynolds Tobacco Co. et al. Plaintiffs’ attorneys described Moyer as a typical, “generic” smoker taken in by a decades-long tobacco conspiracy that led to a variety of health problems, while defense counsel argued that Moyer willingly chose to smoke, despite knowing the risks.

Irimi is one of the first Engle progeny suits to come to trial in the wake of a record $23.6 billion July verdict against the tobacco industry in another Engle suit, Robinson v. R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co. Like many Engle cases, Irimi rests on questions of smoking’s link to Moyer’s health problems and the tobacco industry’s responsibility. Moyer, who smoked for decades, died in 2013 at 83. In the years before his death, he suffered from a variety of health issues, including chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD), emphysema, skin cancer, parotid cancer, lung cancer, and heart disease.

Scott Schlesinger, representing Moyer’s daughter Heather Irimi and other plaintiff family members, spent the bulk of his two-hour opening statement detailing what he argued was a decades-long tobacco industry cover up of smoking’s dangers while tobacco manufacturers controlled the output of addictive nicotine to boost cigarette sales. “The cigarette is not the product. The cigarette is the package,” Schlesinger said. “Nicotine is the product.”

Schlesinger claimed that Moyer believed the tobacco industry’s claims that filters and “light” cigarettes, varieties touted for their lower tar and nicotine, would be safer, when in fact they were arguably more dangerous. Schlesinger claimed that Moyer opted for cigarettes that were marketed as safer choices over the years, believing the tobacco industry's marketing.

By contrast, Kevin Boyce, representing R.J. Reynolds, painted Moyer as a man who chose to smoke throughout most of his life, despite knowing of smoking’s dangers for several decades. Boyce claimed Moyer’s decision to choose light cigarettes or brands with filters proved that he knew the inherent dangers of smoking. Narrating a timeline of Moyer’s life, Boyce noted that Moyer quit smoking permanently only after he learned of his respiratory problems. “(Moyer) quit smoking successfully the first time he was properly motivated,” Boyce also claimed that Moyer’s decision not to quit smoking earlier was his responsibility. Dale Moyer "was his own man,” Boyce said.

David Woods, representing defendant Lorillard Tobacco Co., supported that argument by quoting Moyer as saying “There is risk in everything.” While acknowledging that smoking causes a variety of health problems including heart disease, emphysema, and COPD, Woods argued that Moyer could have quit smoking years before he did so, potentially sparing many of his medical problems. Woods argued that, while smoking may have been the medical cause of Moyer's health problems, his choice to continue smoking was the legal cause.

However, with their first witness, Robert Proctor, plaintiffs sought to establish that the majority of smokers only continue the habit because of addiction, and that the tobacco industry markets to young smokers to establish that addiction and maintain its customer base. Proctor, a Stanford University professor and author of Golden Holocaust: Origins of the Cigarette Catastrophe and the Case for Abolition, testified that smoking addiction begins when smokers first take up the habit, typically as teenagers. Before proceedings concluded for the day, Proctor detailed evidence that the tobacco industry specifically marketed to young smokers with a variety of cigarette brands, types, and flavors.

Irimi is one of thousands of Engle progeny cases in Florida, which stem from a 2006 Florida Supreme Court decision decertifying Engle v. Liggett Group Inc., a class-action tobacco suit originally filed in 1994. Although the state’s supreme court ruled Engle cases must be tried individually, it found plaintiffs could rely on certain jury findings in the original case, including the determination that tobacco companies had placed a dangerous, addictive product on the market and had conspired to hide the dangers of smoking. However, individual Engle progeny plaintiffs must prove a causal link between smoking and their health problems.

Irimi proceedings will resume on Monday morning.