Profile cover photo
Profile photo
David Slepkow
Rhode Island personal injury lawyer
Rhode Island personal injury lawyer


Post is pinned.Post has attachment

Post has attachment

Post has attachment
Mesh implants are commonly used to repair hernia injuries to many areas of the body. Complications and defects in several brands of hernia mesh have led to recalls and

Hernia mesh lawsuit
Settle your hernia mesh case
lawsuits related to the injuries. Personal injury lawsuits such as those involving hernia mesh often come with many important and sometimes complex legal decisions the injured person needs to make. One of the most important of these decisions is whether or not to settle a case out of court and for how much.

Many people are searching google and yahoo using keywords such as: “hernia mesh settlement 2017”, “hernia mesh settlement 2016”, “hernia compensation amounts”, “settlement for hernia surgery”, “average hernia mesh settlement” , “hernia settlement amounts” and “hernia mesh lawsuit settlement amounts 2016”. People are desperately seeking information on what constitutes an average or fair settlement for hernia mesh claims in 2017.


ethicon Physiomesh
Hernia mesh settlement 2017

Post has attachment

Post has attachment
Below you will find a timeline of important dates and events concerning Hernia Mesh manufactured by Bard / Davol. This timeline is very complicated and convoluted, to say the least. This post was authored by a hernia mesh lawyer. Hernia mesh lawsuits have been filed across the United States. Many of these lawsuits have been consolidated in Multi District Litigation (MDL). Here are some of the most significant Multi District Litigation:

MDL No. 1842 | In Re: Kugel Mesh Herniamedical device liability
MDL No. 2753 | In Re: Atrium Medical Corp. C-Qur Mesh
Products Liability Litigation, UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MDL No. 2782 | In RE: Ethicon Physiomesh Flexible
Composite Hernia Mesh Products Liability Litigation, United States District Court for the Northern District of Georgia
1996- Surgical Sense Inc. submits FDA application for “Kugel™ Hernia Patch”
legal help for mesh recall

On August 5th, 1996 Surgical Sense Inc. from Arlington Texas submitted a 510(k) application pursuant to 21 CFR 807.9 for the “Kugel™ Hernia Patch”. Surgical Sense Inc. classified this medical device as “surgical mesh.” Surgical Sense Inc. alleged that the “Kugel Hernia Patch” was substantially equivalent to: “Atrium Polypropylene mesh”.

They asserted to the FDA that the “intended use of the Kugel hernia Patch is a surgical mesh for reinforcement of a hernia defect” Federal Drug Administration (FDA), Kugel Hernia Patch 510 (k) summary

1997- Davol introduces “Composix™ hernia patch

“In 1997, Davol released the Composix™ hernia patch, a forerunner to the CK Patch.

Bard / Davol hernia mesh
Hernia mesh settlement 2017
The Composix patch is composed of two layers of polypropylene mesh for tissue ingrowth on the abdominal side, and a layer of ePTFE on the other side to prevent bowel adhesion to the mesh. The Composix patch does not contain a ring. Prior to placing the Composix patch on the market, Davol conducted animal testing by implanting the patch into the abdominal cavity of pigs. Davol submitted the testing results in a so-called 510(k) application to the Food and Drug Administration (“FDA”) in order to get clearance to market the Composix patch.” CHRISTOPHER THORPE and LAURE THORPE, Plaintiffs v. DAVOL, INC. and C.R. BARD, INC., Defendants. C.A. No. 008-463ML MDL Docket No. 07-1842ML In Re: Kugel Mesh Hernia Repair Patch Litigation

It is apparent that the FDA 510(k) application process is the root of the problem for defective hernia mesh. The FDA 510 (k) application is a controversial process which allows medical device manufacturers to fast track medical devices while evading FDA testing protocol.

This Composix hernia patch was “for use in the repair of ventral (incisional) and inguinal (in the groin area) hernias.” Legal Tube

2000- Davol aquires the Kugel™ hernia patch from Surgical Sense Inc.

“Davol acquired the Kugel™ hernia patch from Surgical Sense Inc., which marketed the Kugel™ patch for several years.” Id.

“Eventually, the CK Patch was designed with two layers of polypropylene mesh, a layer of ePTFE, and a PET memory recoil ring welded between the layers of polypropylene mesh. The XL CK Patch featured larger sizes, two PET rings, and placement pockets for easier deployment of the patch.” Id. “Because Davol considered the XL CK Patch products a modification to an existing product (the one-ringed CK Patch in small and medium sizes), it made an internal determination that a 510(k) submission to the FDA was not warranted.”

August 25, 2000: Davol /Bard submitted application to FDA for Composix E/X Mesh Patch. “On August 25, 2000, Davol/Bard submitted an application to the Federal Drug Administration to notify of its intent to market the Composix E/X Mesh Patch for use in the reconstruction of soft tissue deficiencies, such as for the repair of hernias and chest wall defects. Thereafter, the 510k Application was approved by the FDA and the Composix E/X Mesh Patch was classified as a Class II medical device. The Composix E/X Mesh Patch was designed, manufactured, sold and distributed by DAVOL to be used by surgeons for hernia repair surgeries and was represented by DAVOL to be an appropriate, cost-effective and suitable product for such purpose.”

2002- Here comes the XL CK Patch

In 2002 the XL CK Patch medical device was sold for the first time Id.

In 2002, medical doctors began reporting problems with the Composix Kugel Mesh Patch. “a growing number of physicians began to report major abdominal injuries in their patients which stemmed from broken memory recoil rings in the patches.” Legal tube

2003- problems emerge with CK Patch

In the 2003 time period, “Davol first learned of a ring break in its CK Patch product line in 2003.” “In October 2003, Davol decided to enhance the weld strength of the memory recoil rings in all its CK patch products.” Id.

2005- XL CK patch recalled by Davol

“By mid to late 2005, Davol became aware of an increase in reported ring breaks in the XL CK Patch. Davol initiated a Corrective and Preventive Action (“CAPA”) investigation into the
complaints. Davol also communicated the complaints to the FDA, informing it that the exact cause of the ring breaks was undetermined and that a recall did not appear warranted at that
time.” Id.

“On August 31, 2005, production of XL CK Patches was halted while Davol investigated ring break complaints. Distribution of the XL CK Patches was discontinued on December 8,
2005.” Id.

“In a December 21, 2005 letter from Karen Kane (“Kane”) Manager of Davol’s marketing department, the sales force was advised that XL sizes of the CK Patch were being recalled because “the strength of the memory recoil ring may not withstand aggressive manipulation that may sometimes be applied during the placement of these extra-large sizes.. Kane further stated that customers asking for XL sizes of the CK Patch should be advised that the XL CK Patches were “currently not available and that Customer Service is offering the equivalent sizes of the Composix EX as an alternative.” Id.

December 22, 2005: Class 1 Device Recall Bard Bard Composix Kugel Mesh X-Large Patch Oval with ePTFE, 8.7” x 10.7” Code: 0010206

“December 27, 2005: C.R. Bard notifies US customers of a voluntary Class I recall of the Bard Composix Kugel Mesh X-Large Patch by letter delivered via Federal Express. The recall is issued after reports that a component of the patch, known as the memory recoil ring, may not withstand certain stresses associated with specific surgical placement techniques. Breakage of the memory recoil ring can cause bowel perforations and chronic intestinal fistulae. At the time, approximately 32,000 units had been sold worldwide.’ Lawyers and settlements

“On December 28, 2005, Davol issued an “Urgent Product Recall” for the XL CK Patch to “Distributor: (Hospital Administrator, Materials Manager, O.R. Manager, Surgeon).” Pltfs.’ Ex. 676. Davol informed its customers that it was voluntarily recalling three product codes of the XL CK Patch because it had “received complaint reports of the PET recoil ring breaking which could potentially lead to bowel perforation and/or chronic enteric fistulas. We have identified a rate increase of recoil ring breaks since the introduction of these product codes in 2002. We estimatethe frequency of these reported events to be in the range of 0.08%. ”

2006- XL CK Patch recall is expanded

The expanded recall included “certain lots of the Large Oval and Large Circle products, as well as all lots of the Oval product”

“March 24, 2006: An urgent letter is sent by Bard to hospital administrators advising them that the Class I recall has been expanded to include certain lots of the Large Oval and Large Circle products, as well as all lots of the Oval product. A letter sent to distributors of the Kugel Mesh Patch states that the recall includes lots manufactured up to and including December, 2003, and notes that “there is a risk that the welds could break under the stress placed on the large sized products during placement, which could lead to potential patient complications such as abdominal pain, bowel perforation or chronic enteric fistulas….Finally, a letter is sent to surgeons the same day requesting that they immediately stop using the specific products listed in the recall and give copies of the Important Patient Management Information to professionals who are managing patients already implanted with the recalled products. The expanded recall is issued because Davol, Inc., has learned of further ring breaks, including cases of bowel perforation, ring migration through the abdominal wall, bowel obstruction, and one instance in which a patient died after developing septic shock, consumptive coagulopathy and acute myocardial infarction from surgery to repair bowel fistulas caused by perforation from the broken ring.2005”

April 3, 2006: ” The US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and Davol, Inc (a subsidiary of C.R. Bard, Inc), have notified healthcare professionals regarding the expansion of a class 1 recall for a ventral hernia repair device ( Bard Composix Kugel Mesh Patch) to include all lots of the oval “midline” size (product code 0010209), and lots manufactured before 2004 of the large oval (0010202) and large circle (0010204) products. The recall previously affected only the extra-large oval patch.”

“The recall is due to the potential for breakage of the “memory recoil ring” under the stress of placement into the intraabdominal space, leading to bowel perforation and/or chronic enteric fistulae, according to an alert sent yesterday from MedWatch, the FDA’s safety information and adverse event reporting program. ”

“December 18, 2006: A lawsuit is filed against Davol, Inc. related to the Kugel Mesh Patch. The plaintiff in the case, filed in Rhode Island, claims failure of the Kugel Mesh Patch resulted in severe pain and required bowel dissection surgery to remove the Patch, which had become stuck to the plaintiff’s bowel. The bowel dissection surgery resulted in chronically inflamed bowels. Lawyers for the plaintiff argue that Davol, Inc., knew that there was a possibility of failure in the Kugel Mesh Patch but did not properly warn the public.” Lawyers and settlements

2007- Davol recalls Bard®Composix® Kugel® Large Sized Patch and Bard® Composix® Kugel® Large Oval and Bard® Composix® Kugel®Large Circle

Post has attachment
Types of Covidien hernia mesh we are reviewing for lawsuits:
Covidien: (Formerly Tyco):

 Parietex  Parietex Composite Ventral Patch,  Parietex ProGrip Self-Fixating Mesh  Parietex Optimized Composite Mesh  Parietex Plug and Patch System  Parietex Composite Open Skirt (PCO OS) Mesh  Parietex Optimized Open Skirt Mesh  Parietex Composite Parastomal (PCO PM) Mesh  Parietex Composite Hiatal Mesh (PCO 2H)  Parietex Hydrophilic Anatomical Mesh  Parietex Folding Mesh  Parietex Flat Sheet Mesh  Parietex Lightweight Monofilament Mesh

Some FDA adverse event reports for Parietex:

Event date: 06/01/2011 Type of device: PARIETEX COMPOSITE MESH, Event Description: Procedure type: hernia. According to the rptr: during a re-operation, it was noticed that the mesh had a hole. The bowel was incarcerated through the hole in the mesh. The doctor stated that the suture stayed in the fascia and then pulled through the mesh. CatalogS Number
Event Date: 04/30/2012 Type of Device: PARIETEX COMPOSITE MESH, Event Description: According to the reporter: the customer reports that a pt, on whom the device has been applied some time ago, had to be re-operated. During the procedure, the surgeon found out that the intestine was sticking on the whole surface of the mesh. Catalog Number: PCO3020F
Event Date: 06/22/2009 Type of Device: PARIETEX COMPOSITE MESH, Event Description: Procedure type: hernia. According to the reporter: as patient was coming out of anesthesia, the patient tore out the product from the suture half at the fascia side as well as 3cm. The surgeon removed the product and used a c-quin mesh. Catalog Number: PCO3728
Event Date: 03/22/2011 Type of Device: PARIETEX COMPOSITE MESH Event Description: Mesh product implanted during surgery for incisional hernia on (b)(6) 2011. Product split almost entirely in half and pt was returned to surgery on (b)(6) 2011 for removal and surgical repair. Catalog Number: PIF00365
Event date: 07/13/2011 Type of device: COVIDIEN PARIETEX PROGRIP Event Description: Pt called to report adverse reactions to covidien paritex progrip, which he had implanted on (b)(6) 2011, due to an inguinal hernia. Pt stated since implantation of the parietex progrip mesh, he experiences constant pain in his right testicle. He also stated he has severe pain starting in his right groin up to his belly button. He also experiences pain down the inside of his leg to the bottom of his foot. Pt also says he often feels an “electrical jolt” feeling between his testicle and leg, on the back of his knee, and where the pain ends up through his groin. He stated his lower abdominal area is also in constant pain and has spasms. Pt says he received no warning from his doctor or surgeon of possible adverse reactions or side effects, he was only told there is a 2% chance of reoccurrence. His everyday living has been severely impaired and he says he is basically disabled due to constant pain. Pt is concerned the mesh is possibly poisoning him since it’s made of polyester. He said he used to do auto body work and painted cars for 13 yrs, and was very used to things with “poly” in them. Now, he claims the smell of anything with “poly” in it makes him sick. He stated he takes pain medication, but it doesn’t really help. He says his sleep is disrupted, he sleeps very little due to pain, and the little amount of sleep causes some anxiety for him. He said he had the mesh implanted at (b)(6).
Below you will find information about a recent lawsuit against three companies related to Parietex Progrip Mesh .

This lawsuit was filed by a Louisiana resident in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana. According to the hernia mesh lawsuit, “His preoperative diagnosis was right inguinal hernia.” This product liability defective medical device lawsuit alleged that Parietex Progrip Mesh was defectively designed, dangerous and unsafe.
#herniameshlawsuit #herniameshsettlement
#meshlawyers #herniameshsettlement2017

Post has attachment
If you or a friend or family member have suffered complications resulting from a hernia repair procedure, you should carefully read this pertinent informational article concerning defective hernia mesh.

ethicon PhysiomeshIf you or a loved one have suffered complications from ETHICON PHYSIOMESH™ Flexible Composite Mesh, it is imperative that you become informed about the history of this medical device. You also should become informed of the status of the complex litigation in Federal District Court in the United States legal system.

(Editor’s notes | There was a case management conference on August 1st 2017 and an order entered. The Federal Court ordered in pertinent part that: “Proposed Counsel Organizational Structure” (Doc. 192) is granted. Any additional applications for membership in the Plaintiffs’ Steering Committee shall be filed with the Court by not later than August 8, 2017″)

(Editor’s notes| The Honorable Justice Richard Story of the Northern District of Georgia issues a PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE ORDER AND NOTICE OF INITIAL CONFERENCE Justice Story scheduled a case management conference for August 1st 2017. Here is the 411 for the conference: August 1, 2017, at 2:00PM in Courtroom 2105, United States Courthouse, 75 Ted Turner Drive, S.W., Atlanta, Georgia 30303. “(c) Preliminary Reports. Counsel will submit to the Court by July 25, 2017, a brief consolidated written statement indicating their preliminary understanding of the facts involved in the litigation and the critical factual and legal issues. Counsel should include in these statements a list of all pending motions and a list of all related cases pending in state or federal courts and their current status, to the extent known. The statements should be sent to the Courtroom Deputy Clerk, Ms. Stacey Kemp (email omitted) These statements will not be filed with the Clerk, will not be binding, will not waive claims or defenses, and may not be offered into evidence against a party in later proceedings.”)

(Editor’s notes | update 6/2/17: The Panel on Multi District Litigation ordered that “IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that the actions listed on Schedule A and pending outside the Northern District of Georgia are transferred to the Northern District of Georgia and, with the consent of that court, assigned to the Honorable Richard W. Story for coordinated or consolidated pretrial proceedings. Transfer order)

Ethicon’s lawyers shop for federal judges for Physiomesh hernia mesh claims

What is ETHICON PHYSIOMESH™ Flexible Composite Mesh?
The focus of this hernia mesh liability article is definitely ETHICON PHYSIOMESH™. ETHICON PHYSIOMESH™ is Flexible Composite Mesh manufactured by Johnson and Johnson’s (NYSE: JNJ) subsidiary Ethicon. Ethicon Physiomesh™ is made of non-absorbable polypropylene.

“ETHICON PHYSIOMESH™, Flexible Composite Mesh, is a sterile, low profile, flexible composite mesh designed for the repair of hernias and medical device liabilityother fascial deficiencies. The mesh product is composed of a nonabsorbable, macroporous polypropylene mesh laminated between two undyed polyglecaprone-25 films. An undyed polydioxanone film provides the bond between the polyglecaprone-25 film and polypropylene mesh. The polypropylene component is constructed of knitted filaments of extruded polypropylene. An additional dyed polydioxanone film marker has been added for orientation purposes.” 510 (K) summary for Ethicon

According to Ethicon, “Physiomesh™ may be used for the repair of hernias and other fascial deficiencies that require the addition of a reinforcing or bridging material to obtain the desired surgical result.” More information

Holding Ethicon accountable for PHYSIOMESH™
If you suffered through revision surgery or suffered pain and suffering caused by defective hernia mesh, you should consult with a high Hernia mesh lawsuitpowered, deep pocket hernia mesh litigation attorney. If you have suffered through hernia recurrence after the surgical implantation of Physiomesh™ you need to find out whether you qualify to receive compensation and damages in Federal District Court utilizing the best hernia mesh lawsuit lawyers.

Thousands of potential Physiomesh ™ victims across the United States and Canada
If you are a victim in Canada, you may want to become informed as to whether the United States Federal Courts are a more hospitable and lucrative forum to seek damages against Johnson and Johnson and it’s subsidiary Ethicon. If ETHICON PHYSIOMESH™ has caused you and your family suffering and misery, you need to be informed of your legal option to get justice and hold Ethicon responsible.”

Scientific Studies related to ETHICON PHYSIOMESH™

Tissue Integration and Inflammatory Reaction in Full-Thickness Abdominal Wall Repair Using an Innovative Composite Mesh | Outcomes of Bridging Versus Mesh Augmentation in Laparoscopic Repair of Small and Medium Midline Ventral Hernias | Comparison of Two Different Concepts of Mesh and Fixation Technique in Laparoscopic Ventral Hernia Repair: A Randomized Controlled Trial | Long-Term Evaluation of Adhesion Formation and Foreign Body Response to Three New Meshes | Biaxial Analysis of Synthetic Scaffolds for Hernia Repair Demonstrates Variability in Mechanical Anisotropy, Non-Linearity and Hysteresis | Ventralight ST and SorbaFix Versus Physiomesh and Securestrap in a Porcine Model

Why get peanuts in Canadian Courts if you could possibly secure a lucrative six or seven figure settlement or judgment in the US Courts?
Victims from Toronto, Montreal, Vancouver, Ottawa, and other bustling urban areas in Canada such as Calgary, Edmonton, Quebec City, Winnipeg and Hamilton may find the information set forth in this expose helpful in making informed choices. The relative pros and cons of victims utilizing the Canadian or American Courts to get justice, accountability and compensation resulting from defective hernia mesh is beyond the scope of the article.

Victims need to know that lawsuits in Canada appear to be a “class action”. Whereas the victims in the United states have filed potentially more lucrative individual lawsuits seeking compensation. This legal article authored by an attorney focuses on obtaining compensation in the United States legal system. We are not Canadian attorneys, so we cannot comment on how the Canadian legal system operates.

Ethicon Physiomesh ™ | Hernia mesh individual lawsuit attorney
legal help for mesh recallAccording to Ethicon’s corporate counsel, “For many years, surgeons have repaired inguinal, ventral, and umbilical hernias (the exit of an organ through the wall of the cavity in which it resides) using devices containing mesh. The mesh in many of these devices is made from sterile, polypropylene-based materials. Depending on the surgeon’s repair technique, the mesh is typically placed either under or over the hernia and held in place utilizing one of several methods. The mesh acts as “scaffolding” for new growth of the patient’s own tissue, which eventually incorporates the mesh into the surrounding area to provide the needed support. ” DEFENDANTS’ RESPONSE IN OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR TRANSFER PURSUANT TO 28 U.S.C. § 1407 William M. Gage MS Bar No. 8691 Butler Snow LLP 1020 Highland Colony Pkwy, Suite 1400 Ridgeland, MS 39

What types of hernia mesh devices are we reviewing for aggrieved victims:

Post has attachment

Post has attachment
Boating accidents on rivers, at sea, in lakes and on any open water in Rhode Island occur mainly because boaters underestimate the hazards of operating their watercraft or not following nautical safety laws. Many individuals piloting yachts, boats or personal watercraft operate the vessel without any comprehension of its operating characteristics. These inexperienced boaters often have no idea what to do when other watercraft is approaching. This can lead to a very serious and deadly boat accident in Newport, Bristol, Tiverton or East Greenwich

Boat accident stats
Statistics maintained by the U.S. Coast Guard indicates that there were more than 4000 boating accidents in 2011 nationwide, which resulted in more than 3100 injuries and almost 700 deaths. Three out of four deaths associated with these accidents were the result of drowning, where 80 percent of the drowning victims were found without life jackets. The extensive boat accident-related property damage totaled more than $35 million.

If involved and injured in a boat wreck or boating related accident in RI then contact boat accident attorneys in Rhode Island or a Providence Personal injury Lawyer / RI Personal Injury attorney.

Common Accident Causes In Newport, Bristol, East Greenwich and Narragansett RI
The high rate of boating accidents in RI often involves one or more of the three most common causes that include:

• Inexperience – Many boat operators lack adequate training or the much-needed experience to operate their water vessel or motor boat safely.

• Excessive Speed – While it is fun to enjoy the open water and freedom from speed limits, traveling too fast can cause the vessel to overturn or crash into other objects or watercraft.

• Reckless Boating – Reckless driving or “showboating” is a serious problem when the boater chooses to demonstrate their abilities of piloting the vessel. At any point, reckless boating in Rhode Island can cause the vessel to overturn, take on water and sink.

• Inattention – Rhode Island Boaters enjoy the open water as a way to relieve stress, relax and spend time with family and friends. However, vessel operators face limitless distractions causing inattention. Many RI, Newport, Barrington and Bristol boat accidents occur because of a lack of safety concerns or not focusing on channel markers or other vessels on the water.

• Intoxication – Operating a water vessel in Rhode Iland while intoxicated is just as dangerous as drunk driving on the nation’s highways and streets. Alcohol, drugs and other recreational substances can easily impair the boater’s focus, judgment, abilities and reaction time. Piloting the watercraft , sail boat or motor boat while impaired can create dangerous circumstances on the open water and increase the risk for an accident to occur.

• Maintenance Issues – Leaky boats, malfunctioning engines and defective parts can create life-threatening problems while on the water. Many boat maintenance issues can place the lives of boaters and passengers at great risk.

• Adverse Weather – Choppy waters, lightning, high winds and numerous water conditions can place the lives of boaters and passengers in great peril. If the boater is inexperienced or intoxicated, the boat can easily be lost even in shallow waters.

Avoiding a Boat Accident in Rhode island and Providence Plantations
There are many effective tips for reducing the potential risk of being involved in a boating accident in RI. This includes staying sober, checking the weather forecast, not overloading the vessel, maintaining flotation devices for every passenger on board and completing a boating safety course.

In addition, the vessel should be inspected from stem to stern each time it heads out on open waters. A functioning fire extinguisher must be easily accessible on deck. Safety precautions concerning the propeller should be taken, especially when young children are in the water or on board.


Post has attachment
A hernia mesh attorney provides basic information about hernia mesh lawsuits pending in the United States. This post focuses on various hernia mesh Atrium C-QUR™ hernia mesh lawsuits 2017.
#herniamesh #herniameshsettlement2017

Atrium C-QUR™ hernia mesh lawsuits 2017
(Please note that this post focuses on lawsuits pending in Federal Court. Conceivably, lawsuits could be filed in state courts also.)

Types of lawsuit: Multi District Litigation


The presiding justice: Judge Landya McCafferty

Federal Court address: 55 Pleasant Street Room 110 Concord, NH 03301,

Phone number of Court: 603.225.1423.

Case caption for hernia mesh lawsuit: In Re: Atrium Medical Corp. C-QUR™ Mesh Products Liability Litigation (MDL No. 2753)

MDL Docket No: Case No.: 16-md-2753 LM

List of individual cases: Listing of Individual Cases as of August 28, 2017

510(k) Premarket Notification: Applicant- Atrium Medical Corp.


“On the basis of the papers filed and hearing session held, we find that these actions involve common questions of fact, and that centralization in the District of New Hampshire will serve the convenience of the parties and witnesses and promote the just and efficient conduct of this litigation.
All the actions share common factual questions arising out of allegations that defects in defendants’ C-Qur mesh products incite an allergic or inflammatory response that causes severe complications. All the actions involve factual questions relating to whether C-Qur mesh was defectively designed or manufactured, whether defendants knew or should have known of the alleged propensityof C-Qur mesh to result in an allergic or inflammatory response, and whether defendants provided adequate instructions and warnings with the mesh. These common factual issues are sufficiently complex to merit centralized treatment. Centralization will eliminate duplicative discovery; prevent inconsistent pretrial rulings; and conserve the resources of the parties, their counsel, and the judiciary.” UNITED STATES JUDICIAL PANEL on MULTIDISTRICT LITIGATION IN RE: ATRIUM MEDICAL CORP. C-QUR MESH PRODUCTS LIABILITY LITIGATION MDL No. 2753 TRANSFER ORDER

General Information:

Instructions for Docketing in MDL Cases and Spreading to Member Cases

Instructions for Direct File in the MDL Case

Instructions for Opening a Civil Case

Application for ECF Login/Password – MDL Cases Only

District of New Hampshire’s Local Rules
(Appendix A for Supplemental Rules for Electronic Case Filing)

MDL Rules & Procedures (source)

Case Manager/Docketing Clerk:

Donna Esposito
(603) 225-1623

Back-up case manager:
Judy Barrett-Weatherbee
(603) 225-1587

CM/ECF Helpdesk: (603) 225-1423 Option 7

Case management orders:


““The actions listed in Attachment A are consolidated for pretrial purposes. Any “tag-along” actions later removed to or transferred to this court, or directly filed in this court, will automatically be consolidated with this action without the necessity of future motions or orders. This consolidation, however, does not constitute a determination that the actions should be consolidated for trial, nor does it have the effect of making any entity a party to any action in which he, she, or it has not been named, served, or added in accordance with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.”


“In order to eliminate delay and to promote judicial efficiency, any plaintiff whose case would qualify for transfer to MDL No. 2753 under the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation’s December 8, 2016 transfer order (doc. no. 1) may file his or her complaint directly in MDL No. 2753 in this court. Defendants reserve the right to object to the inclusion of any such action in this MDL.” (Direct Filing and Waiver of Service)

Hernia mesh lawsuit settlements: There has been no global C-Qur hernia mesh settlement 2017. There has been no global C-Qur hernia mesh settlement 2016
Wait while more posts are being loaded