Multidistrict Litigation: What Is it and Why Does It Matter? (Part 2)

Multidistrict Litigation: What Is it and Why Does It Matter? (Part 2)

Picking up from Multidistrict Litigation: What Is it and Why Does It Matter? (Part 1), here, we will take a closer look at some of the most highly publicized MDLs currently underway in U.S. courts. It’s important to point out that, when people have claims that may fall in line with ongoing multidistrict litigation, whether or not it is more beneficial for them to join an MDL will depend on various factors, and an experienced attorney can advise them of their best options for moving forward with their claim.

The Phoenix product liability lawyers at Law Office of Richard Langerman can help you decide whether joining an MDL is right for your case and needs.

The Phoenix product liability lawyers at Law Office of Richard Langerman can help you decide whether joining an MDL is right for your case and needs.

Hip Implant MDLs

One of the most prominent focuses of multidistrict litigation in the U.S. is currently hip implant devices. Such devices, which have been reported to fail at high rates and cause patients to develop serious (and potentially irreversible) injuries, have been the focus of the following MDLs:

  • MDL 2197 for the ASR hip implant devices made by DePuy Orthopaedics, Inc. – This is underway in the U.S. District Court of the Northern District of Ohio, with Judge Solomon Oliver, Jr. presiding over this MDL.
  • MDL 2244 for the Pinnacle hip implant devices also made by DePuy Orthopaedics, Inc. – This is underway in the U.S. District Court of the Northern District of Texas, with Judge Ed Kinkeade presiding over this MDL.
  • MDL 2391 for the M2A Magnum hip implant devices made by Biomet – This is underway in the U.S. District Court of the Northern District of Indiana, with Judge Robert L. Miller, Jr. presiding over this MDL.
  • MDL 2329 for the Conserve hip implant devices made by Wright Medical Technology, Inc. – This is underway in the U.S. District Court of the Northern District of Georgia, with Judge William S. Duffey, Jr. presiding over this MDL.

Vaginal Mesh MDLs

Vaginal mesh devices, which were implanted in women with stress urinary continence or pelvic organ prolapse (after childbirth), have also been the subject of ongoing MDLs in U.S. courts. This cases generally allege that defective mesh caused women to develop serious injuries and that about 10 percent of women need to undergo at least one revision surgery within a year of implantation due to the serious risks associated with these defective devices.

Ongoing vaginal mesh MDLs include (but are not limited to):

  • MDL 2187 for the Pelvic Repair Systems made by C.R. Bard, Inc. – This MDL is underway in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of West Virginia, with Judge Joseph R. Goodwin presiding over this MDL.
  • MDL 2326 for the vaginal mesh devices produced by Boston Scientific – This MDL is also underway in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of West Virginia, with Judge Joseph R. Goodwin presiding over this MDL.

There have also been vaginal mesh MDLs set up for claims against Ethicon, American Medical Systems (AMS) and Cook (among other manufacturers of allegedly defective mesh devices).

Phoenix Product Liability Lawyers at the Law Office of Richard Langerman

If you have been injured after using a dangerous or defective medical device, the Phoenix product liability lawyers at the Law Office of Richard Langerman will fight to help you obtain the maximum possible compensation to cover your pain and suffering, lost wages, and medical bills.

Call us today at (602) 240-5525 to learn more about your rights and receive professional advice regarding your case by setting up a free, no obligations initial consult with our trusted attorneys.

No Comments

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.