An international transvaginal mesh maker increased its lawsuit budget by $448 million after being ordered by the U.S. government to prepare for litigation.

Transvaginal mesh lawsuits are on the rise as more women claim to have been injured by the medical implant. The number of lawsuits against mesh makers nears 80,000 as these women step into the arena to fight for their own justice.

Manufacturers of transvaginal mesh are bracing themselves for big payouts by increasing their settlement budgets. One Danish mesh maker has recently expanded the company’s litigation finances by $448 million to provide additional funding for the growing number of legal settlements in the U.S.

What’s The Trouble With Transvaginal Mesh?

Transvaginal mesh may come with complications, such as erosion and organ perforation.
Image: Escubes

Transvaginal mesh is a net-like device implanted into a woman’s body to treat conditions such as pelvic organ prolapse (POP) and stress urinary incontinence (SUI). However, mesh products may cause a slew of additional medical problems.

The implantation of transvaginal mesh can lead to infections and cause issues with organs and tissue. The device may cause pain, nerve damage, bleeding, pain during intercourse, scarring and much more.

The transvaginal mesh can deteriorate, migrate, or fuse to surrounding organs and tissue, which creates the need for a revision surgery. Because the mesh is meant to be a permanent solution, it often takes multiple surgeries to remove the device.

Danish Company Prepares for Serious Payouts

Coloplast, a Danish manufacturer of transvaginal mesh, has allocated millions to cover settlement costs in the U.S.
Image: Holscher Design

Coloplast is an international manufacturer of medical devices headquartered in Denmark. The company supplies products for ostomy care, wound and skin care, incontinence and urology in addition to transvaginal mesh.

Coloplast markets its products to hospitals, retailers and patients worldwide. With such an extensive reach, it seems that the company is bracing itself for a long haul of litigation. In fact, there are 2,000 lawsuits against Coloplast in a multidistrict litigation in the Southern District of West Virginia alone.

In 2014, Coloplast settled 400 lawsuits with a $16 million distribution. However, the United States government has made it clear that Coloplast won’t be getting off that easy.

“We have been ordered by the judicial system in the U.S. to take preliminary steps towards actual litigation on 200 specific cases,” CEO Lars Rasmussen said in a press release. “This means that our costs in relation to the litigation will increase. As a consequence, we have found it necessary to increase our provision.”

If your vaginal mesh failed and required additional surgery, then you might be entitled to compensation for receiving a faulty medical device.

Complete a free, no obligation case evaluation now to see if you qualify.

The post International Mesh Maker Adds $448 Million To Lawsuit Fund appeared first on Citizens Report.

A $3 million award for an elderly woman who sued McDonald’s after spilling hot coffee on her lap has led to a widespread misconception about nonsense lawsuits.

The idea of absurd, unnecessary lawsuits became widespread in the ’90s when 79-year-old Stella Liebeck spilled hot coffee on her lap, sued McDonalds and was initially awarded almost $3 million in damages.

Although most people have heard about the case, few know the real facts. Developing an understanding of what happened and how the case unfolded will help consumers realize the difference between nonsense lawsuits and legitimate causes for legal action.

How The Hot Coffee Case Began

In 1992, Liebeck bought a McDonald’s coffee at a drive-thru in Albuquerque. While sitting in the passenger seat in a parked car in the McDonald’s lot, she attempted to add cream and sugar to her coffee.

Placed between her knees while removing the cup’s lid, the hot liquid covered her lap. The car was not in motion when the the coffee spilled.

The coffee was stifling hot, soaking through her sweatpants and scalding the skin and flesh on her legs, inner thighs, perineum, buttocks, genitals and groin. Liebeck suffered third-degree burns and needed skin grafts on her inner thighs. Over 16 percent of her body was burned.

Her grandson, the driver of the vehicle, took her to the emergency room after she went into shock from the severity of the injury. She was hospitalized for eight days.

Liebeck wasn’t the only one injured by the scalding hot coffee. McDonald’s corporate policy allowed the coffee to be served at 180 and 190 degrees fahrenheit, a temperature that could cause serious burs. Coffee brewed at home is usually between 135 to 140 degrees.

In the legal proceedings, the quality assurance manager at McDonald’s acknowledged that an injury is possible with any substance served at 140 degrees or above, making it more than likely that the coffee would burn the mouth and throat.

The restaurant had received more than 700 previous reports of third-degree burns and other injuries from its coffee. Despite the fact that McDonald’s had already paid injured plaintiffs, the company didn’t alter the standard temperature of their brew. 

The Decision To Sue

Liebeck and her family made the decision to sue after McDonald’s refused to pay her medical bills in full.
Image: Liar City

Liebeck reached out to McDonald’s requesting assistance with medical bills, which amounted to over $10,000. Because of the incident, she was permanently disfigured and partially disabled.

She asked for $20,000 to cover her medical expenses and lost income. McDonald’s offered her a maximum of $800, which prompted her to go to trial.

McDonald’s refused to fix the temperature policy despite hundreds of injuries, and the jury awarded Liebeck the money from McDonald’s coffee sales for two days.  The million-dollar amount that Liebeck was initially awarded in punitive damages spread like wildfire throughout media platforms.

Because Liebeck was partially at fault for her injuries, the original award of $2.86 million was reduced by 80 percent, which prompted Liebeck and McDonald’s to come to a confidential settlement in order to avoid the lengthy appeals process.

According to a documentary about the case, called Hot Coffee: Is Justice Being Served?, the facts are as follows:

• McDonald’s operations manual required the franchisee to hold its coffee at 180 to 190 degrees Fahrenheit.
• Coffee at that temperature, if spilled, causes third-degree burns in three to seven seconds.
• The chairman of the department of mechanical engineering and biomechanical engineering at the University of Texas testified that this risk of harm is unacceptable, as did a widely recognized expert on burns, the editor-in-chief of the Journal of Burn Care and Rehabilitation, the leading scholarly publication in the specialty.
• McDonald’s admitted it had known about the risk of serious burns from its scalding hot coffee for more than 10 years. The risk had repeatedly been brought to its attention through numerous other claims and suits.
• An expert witness for the company testified that the number of burns was insignificant compared to the billions of cups of coffee the company served each year.
• At least one juror later told the Wall Street Journal she thought the company wasn’t taking the injuries seriously. To the corporate restaurant giant those 700 injury cases caused by hot coffee seemed relatively rare compared to the millions of cups of coffee served. But, the juror noted, “there was a person behind every number and I don’t think the corporation was attaching enough importance to that.”
• McDonald’s quality assurance manager testified that McDonald’s coffee, at the temperature at which it was poured into Styrofoam cups, was not fit for consumption because it would burn the mouth and throat.
• McDonald’s admitted at trial that consumers were unaware of the extent of the risk of serious burns from spilled coffee served at McDonald’s then-required temperature.
• McDonald’s admitted it did not warn customers of the nature and extent of this risk and could offer no explanation as to why it did not.

Jurors commented that the original award was so hefty because McDonald’s had a “callous disregard for the safety of the people.”

Legal action is often more legitimate than you think. Before you assume a case is unwarranted, don’t forget to learn the facts.

The post Legitimate or Nonsense Lawsuits: Liebeck V. McDonald’s appeared first on Citizens Report.

Japanese pharmaceutical giant Takeda is attempting to settle thousands of bladder cancer lawsuits. The company refuses to go through with payouts until 95 percent of plaintiffs sign on, but many are holding out in hopes of getting more compensation.

A $2.37 billion dollar deal to settle thousands of lawsuits related to Takeda’s cancer-causing diabetes drug Actos is in the works. But the settlement may not make it to the final stages if claimants continue to hold out for higher payouts.

Takeda Pharmaceutical Co.’s new CEO Christopher Weber made the $2.37 billion offer in hopes that enough claimants would sign on to close the case. But 20 percent of the desired 95 percent of claimants didn’t agreed to the deal by the initial deadline, which has sprouted doubts about the settlement, causing many to question if it will fall through.

The Backstory on Actos

Actos is a popular Japanese-made diabetes drug that has been linked to bladder cancer.
Via: Japan Times

Takeda Pharmaceutical Co. is a Japanese pharmaceutical company and one of the largest pharmaceutical manufacturers in Asia. Takeda’s diabetes drug pioglitazone, known as Actos, was released in 1999. The drug has since generated more than $16 billion in sales.

In 2004, Actos conducted studies that linked the drug to bladder cancer. The company reportedly kept these findings a secret for seven years.

In 2011, Actos revenue was at an all-time high, ranking in at $4.5 billion. The drug generated 27 percent of Takeda’s income at the time, according to Bloomberg.

Takeda came finally forward about the studies, and the FDA issued an Actos FDA Bladder Cancer Warning on June 15, 2011.

Actos has reportedly caused cancer in thousands of patients, subjecting Takeda to five years of litigation. Takeda teamed up with Eli Lilly in marking efforts, which has made the pharmaceutical company partially liable in the settlement.

In addition to thousands of lawsuits, the FDA has ordered Takeda to obtain data on drug dose, duration of exposure and potential confounding factors that cause cancer. The study will include 193,099 patients with diabetes who do not already have bladder cancer.

“To address the long-term risk of bladder cancer associated with pioglitazone use, the drug manufacturer (Takeda) is conducting a ten-year, observational cohort study as well as a nested case-control study in patients with diabetes who are members of Kaiser Permanente Northern California (KPNC) health plan,” according to the FDA Bladder Cancer Warning.

“The FDA will continue to evaluate data received from the ongoing KPNC study. The Agency will also conduct a comprehensive review of the results from the French epidemiological study. FDA will update the public when additional information becomes available.”

Holding Out For Higher Payouts And Higher Acceptance Rates

Takeda’s lawyers are confident that 95 percent of plaintiffs will sign on by the extended deadline, which ends on September 11.
Via: 2heads

The average payout to each individual who developed cancer or another illness from taking Actos would be more than $250,000. The deadline for 95 percent of claimants to sign on and accept the settlement terms was August 12, but it passed with only 75 percent of plaintiffs on board.

Experts speculate that many of the individuals who developed cancer are aware of higher payouts awarded in previous trials, which has made the plaintiffs more likely to hold out on the deal.

Takeda is on a losing streak when these cases are taken to trial, with five loses out of nine. In Louisiana, a jury awarded $9 billion to a patient who reportedly developed bladder cancer after using Actos for 5 years. The award was reduced by 99 percent to $36.8 million in 2013, but that is still exponentially higher than what plaintiffs would receive in the settlement.

For this reason, some may be in favor of taking their chances suing Takeda. Others might refuse to settle on principle.

Either way, the deadline has been extended for an additional month and will be closed on September 11. The company is holding out on finalizing the deal until almost everyone is in agreement. Takeda’s lawyers appear to be confident that plaintiffs will sign on before the next deadline hits.

“The rate of participation in the resolution program at this point in the opt-in process is in line with other similar, successful resolution programs,” according to Kenneth Greisman, a lawyer representing Takeda.

In the meantime, jurors are being appointed to a trial in Las Vegas State Court. Cases are still pending in federal courts in Lafayette and Louisiana, and in state courts in Illinois, West Virginia, California and Pennsylvania.

The post Takeda’s Actos Settlement Falls Short appeared first on Citizens Report.

The litigation involves Biomet’s metal-on-metal hip replacement device known as M2a Magnum. Hundreds of plaintiffs claimed in various courts across the country that the hip device led to injuries.

The lawsuits were combined and jointly heard at the federal court of Indiana, the state where Biomet is headquartered. The multi-district litigation began in 2012.

As part of the settlement, Biomet will deposit $50 million into an escrow account and another $6 million into an attorney fee fund, the filing showed.

The agreement with the plaintiffs shall extend to all pending cases, and any future lawsuit filed in a federal court on or before April 15, 2014.

Plaintiffs who have received a Biomet M2a 38 or M2a Magnum hip replacement system as part of an initial hip replacement that was rectified more than 180 days after it was implanted shall receive a base award of $200,000.

Biomet, however, maintains that the injuries, losses and damages were not due to its hip implants.

If you have had side effects from a hip replacement surgery performed after 2003, click here!

Read more of this article here.

Click here to learn more about the side effects of metal-on-metal hip replacements, as well as the lawsuit settlements victims receive for their injuries.

Metal-on-metal hip replacement surgery is a common medical procedure that has major faults.

To learn about other drug side effects, their subsequent lawsuits and settlements, as well as other personal injury cases, CLICK HERE.

The post $56 million dollars worth of injuries appeared first on Citizens Report.