Last April I wrote about the FDA’s decision to ban the use of surgical mesh devices for transvaginal repair of pelvic organ prolapse (“transvaginal mesh” or “pelvic mesh”). https://www.videntpartners.com/blog/2019/fda-bans-surgical-mesh-transvaginal-repair-pelvic-organ-prolapse. Of course, because transvaginal mesh was used for that purpose for 14 years (2002-2016), the resulting litigation isn’t over yet. The most recent case to come to my attention is Kaiser v.
Last week I wrote about the FDA’s decision to ban surgical mesh for transvaginal repair of pelvic organ prolapse (POP). The FDA took this action only after tens of thousands of lawsuits were filed to recover for injuries caused by transvaginal mesh, 4 years of heightened FDA surveillance of transvaginal mesh complications, more than 2 years that the FDA gave the manufacturers to produce sufficient evidence that the benefits of transvaginal mesh repair of POP outweigh the risks, and an additional year for the FDA to determine that the manufacturers had not produced the required evidence.
The FDA’s announcement of the ban is at https://www.fda.gov/MedicalDevices/ProductsandMedicalProcedures/ImplantsandProsthetics/UroGynSurgicalMesh/default.htm:
The Second Circuit Court of Appeals recently resolved a split among its district courts on an issue relating to removal from state to federal court based on diversity jurisdiction. Gibbons v.
I’m sure our readers will remember the multiple lawsuits filed against Ford in 2013, with attendant heavy media coverage, claiming that certain Ford vehicles were prone to unintended acceleration (UIA). The cases were consolidated in the U.S.
Material for a law-related blog sometimes comes from an unexpected source.
I have been following this litigation for several months. (See my previous posts at https://www.linkedin.com/feed/update/urn:li:activity:6407989287274455040/, https://www.linkedin.com/feed/update/urn:li:activity:6410206962260144128/, and https://www.linkedin.com/feed/update/urn:li:activity:6435163112038629376/.) There are 10,600
620 cases claiming that glyphosate (the active ingredient in Monsanto’s Roundup weed killer) causes cancer are pending in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California.
The case is Smith v. Chrysler Group (5th Cir. 11/26/2018), http://www.ca5.uscourts.gov/opinions/pub/17/17-40901-CV0.pdf. The opinion concisely summarizes the facts as follows:
