By Kim Truongle

September 4, 2013 – It has come to our attention that some mesh implant clients are receiving calls from companies who seem to be related to the FDA but are not.  For example, the caller identifies himself as phoning from the “Medical Compensation Department of the Food and Drug Administration.”  This is just one example, and callers could be using other false company names.  The calls falsely state that the client has entered into a settlement and requests bank account information for the funds to be transferred.

These calls are scams and not associated with our firm in any way.

·         Do NOT provide your bank account information to anyone who states it is related to your mesh implant claim.   We have not entered into any mesh implant settlements yet.  If ever we receive a reasonable settlement offer for your claim, we will notify you directly.

·         If we call you, our firm will always be identified, as well as the caller’s name.  If you do not recognize the caller, you are also welcome to ask to call us back, hang up, and immediately call back via our toll-free number: (800) 269-3050.

·         We have not provided your personal information to anyone except those required for the pursuit of your case.  We never will.  If you receive one of these scam calls, your contact information did not come from our firm.

·         If you have already provided your bank account information to one of these scam callers, it is important that you contact your bank immediately.

TVM Jury Awards Punitive Damages

Posted by Kim Truongle

March 1, 2013 – The jury that awarded a transvaginal mesh Plaintiff a $3.35 million verdict this week in New Jersey tacked on an additional $7.76 million award for punitive damages against the manufacturer Defendants.  

What are punitive damages?

Punitive damages are damages awarded to serve two purposes.  One, punitive damages are intended to punish the Defendants for wrongdoing and the wanton disregard of the Plaintiff’s rights.  Two, punitive damages are exemplary damages, or damages meant to set an example and deter similar wrongdoing by others.

 Does that mean my case will gross millions of dollars?

No.  The amount of this verdict has NO bearing on the value of individual cases.  Furthermore, although the Judge overseeing the New Jersey trial is a well-respected and highly regarded Judge, the likelihood of appeal is still high.

 What does this punitive damages verdict mean for my individual case?

The real impact this verdict has on the individual cases is that it is a weight that can push these particular Defendants to come to the negotiating table.  This does not mean they will settle the cases immediately, but it is a force that may push them towards negotiations sooner than later.

For additional questions on your TVM case, please call us at (800) 269-3050.

Tvm Jury Verdict: What Does It Mean?

Posted by Kim Truongle

February 27, 2013 – Yesterday, a jury in New Jersey found in favor of a mesh implant Plaintiff, awarding her a $3.35 million verdict. What does this mean for your mesh implant case?

This does NOT mean that all mesh cases will gross millions, nor that they will resolve for anywhere near that much. It is important to remember that trials involve specific facts; some of them may be applicable to you, and some may not. Also keep in mind that despite this verdict, the odds of this Plaintiff receiving her funds any time soon are quite low. The likelihood that this case will be appealed by the Defendants to therefore keep the case tangled in further litigation is high. Furthermore, case expenses are usually borne by the client, meaning that the costs of bringing this Plaintiff’s case to trial will most likely come out of the funds she ultimately receives – trying a case against Johnson & Johnson or any pharmaceutical company is not cheap.

The jury in the New Jersey case unanimously found that there was no design defect and instead put the blame on the Defendants for other failures. Defective design is one key cause of action in these cases, so this shows that juries may not always side with the Plaintiffs regarding every issue alleged. In other words, despite some seemingly large dollar verdicts, in no way are mesh cases “slam dunk cases”.

This does NOT mean the cases are close to resolution or settlement. There is still more work to do before we can sit across the table from Defendants and negotiate a settlement that is fair. Valuation of a case involves both personal and legal facts, as we take into account what each client has and will go through, as well as the facts that help shape the legal framework. The latter may involve things like additional development of the science, finding out more about what the companies did or should have done, etc.

We are optimistic about the verdict out of New Jersey, but there is still a road ahead. Sometimes, that road will run smoothly, but there may also be a few bumps we will have to navigate around as we move ahead. As a national pharmaceutical litigation firm, we use our experience to stay the course towards a resolution that is fair for our clients. If you have any questions, please phone our office at (800) 269-3050.


By Kim Truongle

December 6, 2012 - There are transvaginal mesh cases against many manufacturers moving forward across the country.

Johnson & Johnson pulled some of its mesh products off the market earlier this year. State-court cases against Johnson & Johnson are set to begin in New Jersey early next year.

The first MDL trial against the Bard Defendants is currently set for Spring of 2013. Earlier this year, there was a substantial amount of buzz surrounding a California Bard trial. It is important to be cautious of information on the internet and in the press regarding that trial. There were specific and unusual facts in that case that led to the outcome. Although there will be some indirect effect on our cases from that California trial, it is important to not assume that that the outcome there is an indicator of how any particular case may end up.

A new MDL was created in recent months in the Southern District of West Virginia, adding to the four other mesh MDLs already established in this court. The new MDL governs federal cases relating to the manufacturer Coloplast. We have filed cases in the Southern District of West Virginia and are active in this court system.

The Southern District of West Virginia Judge overseeing all mesh MDL cases has set forth strict Orders regarding requirements and deadlines that must be met. We are contacting our clients if any of those deadlines happen to apply to her individual case. It is important to note that there are key statements regarding what must be provided to the Defendants in these cases, and one of the most interesting items relates to the internet and social media. Anything a Plaintiff posts online, including onto social media sites such as Facebook or Twitter, and which relates to her experience with her mesh, must be saved and provided to the Defendants. Therefore, it is important that anyone involved in these cases be mindful before making any online post.

Meanwhile, we are diligently working on behalf of our transvaginal mesh clients, and we are handling each case on an individual basis. This process can take time, and it is normal for there to be seeming lulls in the individual case process as we investigate additional developments in the general cases. Clients and potential clients are always welcome to phone our office directly at (800) 269-3050 for more information. Our national pharmaceutical litigation firm has a dedicated team of attorneys, paralegals, and case managers actively working on the transvaginal mesh cases.