November 27, 2024 – Settlement Masters Appointed
Judge Sargus appointed Ellen K. Reisman and John Jackson as Special Masters to oversee the settlement process. The court has also introduced an Intensive Settlements Process (ISP), which will be managed by the Special Masters under the court’s supervision until all pending claims are resolved.
Settlement Masters typically play a key role in organizing and categorizing plaintiffs into tiers or grids, taking into account factors such as the severity of their injuries and the strength of their claims.
November 15, 2024: More Covidien Hernia Mesh Lawsuits Filed in Consolidated Litigation
An increasing number of individuals are filing lawsuits against Covidien after being harmed by their hernia mesh products. As of November, there are 1,546 pending hernia mesh lawsuits in the multidistrict litigation (MDL 3029) against Covidien, a major manufacturer of hernia mesh. While several settlement agreements have been reached between hernia mesh manufacturers and those injured by the products, many victims continue to suffer from complications linked to meshes used in hernia repair surgeries. As these injuries persist, more lawsuits are expected to be filed against Covidien, as well as other major hernia mesh manufacturers such as Atrium, Ethicon, and Bard.
October 21, 2024: Mississippi Plaintiff Dies in Bard Hernia MDL Lawsuit
A plaintiff in the Bard hernia mesh multidistrict litigation has passed away. William Mabry, who died in June 2022, is survived by his wife, Joyce, who is now pursuing legal action on his behalf. According to an October 15, 2024, court filing, Joyce believes that William’s death resulted from complications caused by the Bard hernia mesh as well as the underlying injury it was used to treat. As the administrator of his estate, Joyce will continue the fight against Bard, now bringing a wrongful death claim in addition to the original lawsuit for the harm caused by the defective product.
September 17, 2024 – Motion to Remand Denied
Judge Sargus has denied the plaintiffs’ motion for remand, as discussed in our September 5 update. The judge explained that there is a limited stay in effect, as outlined in Case Management Orders 52 and 53 (referenced in the July 6 update), which prohibits any motions or remand requests during this period. Since the motion was filed while the stay was in place, the Court denied the motion without prejudice.
While this ruling was expected, it would have been beneficial to see Bard’s response to the motion, as it likely would have included comments on the ongoing settlement negotiations. Many plaintiffs have been left in the dark for too long, and any insight into the settlement process would have been valuable.