C.R. Bard Gets a Taste of Forced Accountability: CA Court Upholds $3.6 M Mesh Verdict

C.R. Bard Gets a Taste of Forced Accountability: CA Court Upholds $3.6 M Mesh Verdict

November 19, 2014

#CleanUpYourMesh #Bard #FDA

Christine Scott-Mesh Hero

Mesh victims are first victimized by the medical device makers, then by the FDA and usually for a third time by the medical device maker again-re-victimizing already injured women by continuing to insult and demean them as was the case with Christine Scott in her case against C.R.Bard who sold polypropylene mesh kits to treat women with pelvic organ prolapse, Avaulta. Source: Truth In Medicine

Mrs. Scott was originally awarded $5.5 million by a jury from the CA Court. The jury also found that Christine Scott’s surgeon, a nonparty, was 40 percent at fault and the trial court reduced the award accordingly down to $3.6 million.

I’m not sure what it’s going to take for these doctors to wake up and start suing the companies when they’re sued in cases when they are not provided all the facts. As a former rep (not selling this product) I know we weren’t always given all the facts and if we weren’t surgeons certainly weren’t.  

CERTIFIED FOR PARTIAL PUBLICATION IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

Source: Medical Device Expert LLC

Christine Scott’s gynecologist, Dr. Tillaikarasi Kannappan, attended a one day session relating to Avaulta taught by Dr. Susan Tate, a urogynecologist. The session included a power point presentation and a cadaver lab. During the cadaver lab, Dr. Kannappan was shown the proper technique for implanting Avaulta but was not instructed on either removing mesh or diagnosing when mesh should be removed. According to Dr. Kannappan, she was told there could be complications but that they were minimal. Dr. Kannappan recalled being told Avaulta could cause minimal erosion but that the problem could be dealt with as an outpatient procedure in the office by trimming the mesh. Dr. Kannappan’s overall impression was that Avaulta was very safe to use and was a superior product. She was not informed that Avaulta should not be used in sexually active women or for a mild prolapse.

Those are all the buzz words ever other Avaulta attorney representing mesh victims should look for because if that’s consistent messaging from all Avaultra trained surgeons then it means they were coached by the company and there was manipulation of the facts.

Then Bard decided to appeal the decision because a 40% reduction due to “surgeon error” bringing the penalty down to $3.6 million wasn’t enough of a gift for Bard.

(Insult & demean, not recognizing the rights of others, creating hopelessness in victim, quick to place blame, rarely challenged, lack of shame, remorse, guilt or accountability).

Bard argued:

The jury was erroneous as a matter of law, meaning Bard didn’t think the verdict was supported by substantial evidence

Really? A jury of peers clearly felt differently. Do you think Reed Smith, Michael K. Brown, Raymond A. Cardozo, Eric J. Buhr, Kevin G. Lohman and Anne M. Grignon who were defending Bard understand a jury of peers is not made up of a jury of the attorney’s peers, right?)

Bard additionally asserted it was denied a fair trial due to the admission of evidence of postsurgery events, attorney misconduct and juror misconduct.

 (I’m not sure if Mrs. Scott has a dog but I’d hazard a guess she doesn’t or else her dog also would have been blamed for misconduct. What? They didn’t get a fair trial because the court system actually forced accountability on Bard?)  

Amazing everyone else was at fault according to Bard apparently except for Bard. The amount of victim blaming in this case is embarrassing and needless.

ProTip to Judges: If a company takes a case to Appellate Court as a means to further insult and demean and to continue to create hopelessness in the victim and the court finds in favor of the victim, the award should automatically become doubled. I bet that’d clear out the Appellate Courts quickly and pay the victims in a timely manner.

After Bard lost they called to the court’s attention that jurors were tweeting during the case (nothing like hedging your bets Bard-if they won it would have never been mentioned but since they lost they cried to the courts about jury misconduct).

Fortunately Judge William D. Palmer basically told Bard that no amount of pouting and no matter how skilled they were at the blame game and no matter how stupid a few jurors were:

Juror 14 improperly posted on Twitter during trial showing his disdain for the case. For example, this juror posted “FUCK THE COURT SYSTEM.”

By not bringing these Twitter posts to the trial court’s attention, Bard forfeited this point as a ground for its new trial motion.

 

 

And how the fuck do the courts not instruct jurors to not fucking tweet? And how hadn’t the courts monitored this during the case? These poor women-the attorneys want a jury of their peers and the actual jurors were better suited for a season on Big Brother.

And here’s the final thing that makes this case good and precedent setting-negligent design claim was supported by substantial evidence, meaning the device design (part of which is polypropylene) was part of the problem and will help all the women as they move to get polypropylene off the market. Or at least it’s ambiguous enough to be interpreted that way-just like jury really found that the doctors involvement didn’t really cause the harm to Mrs. Scott yet the court refused to reverse the original award back to $5.5 million.