- Products & Services
- Knowledge Base
NEW YORK, NY, August 08, 2013 /24-7PressRelease/ -- Avaulta vaginal mesh personal injury lawyers, representing clients with claims stemming from injuries allegedly caused by defective vaginal mesh devices, are acknowledging the expert testimony of a plaintiff's witnesses in the latest vaginal mesh personal injury trial. These witnesses played key roles in the development of Bard's Avaulta mesh device. Plaintiffs Dan and Donna Cisson allege that the mesh implant was designed defectively and caused Mrs. Cisson to suffer serious injuries.
On Aug. 2 Dr. Jim Ross of the Center for Female Continence and Urogynecologic Surgery testified, according to court documents in Cisson v. C. R. Bard, Inc. (MDL-2187; 2:11-cv-00195; U.S. District Court for the Southern District of West Virginia). Ross had a key role in the development of the Avaulta vaginal mesh. Next was Anthony Brennan, a professor of material science and engineering at the University of Florida. Final deposition testimony came from Douglas Evans, a project leader at Bard.
This lawsuit is one of thousands that have been brought in state and federal courts nationwide, by women who allege that the devices, designed by various manufacturers, have caused them to suffer often debilitating injuries instead of correcting symptoms of stress urinary incontinence (SUI), and pelvic organ prolapse (POP). Recent Bard vaginal mesh awards include a 2012 verdict in California that resulted in a $5.5 million damages award.
Avaulta vaginal mesh personal injury lawyers are currently representing clients nationwide in mass tort actions. Women who believe they have suffered injuries caused by Avaulta vaginal mesh are encouraged to consult with qualified personal injury lawyers to determine if they have cause to sue the manufacturer of this dangerous device. C.R. Bard has had a number of plaintiffs come forward, seeking compensation for medical costs associated with injuries allegedly caused by its vaginal mesh devices. (Attorney advertising. Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome.)
# # #