Kelly Leadem<\/a>, a Boston Scientific spokeswoman, said the company disagreed with the jury\u2019s findings that the Pinnacle inserts suffered from design flaws and that company officials didn\u2019t warn about the implants\u2019 risks.<\/p>\r\n\u201cWe believe we have strong grounds to overturn the verdict on post-trial motions and on appeal,\u201d she said in an e-mailed statement.<\/p>\r\n
\u201cThe evidence we presented showed that the company completely mishandled this product, and I think the jury\u2019s damage award reflects that,\u201d Osborne said.<\/p>\r\n
The women\u2019s lawyers argued yesterday that Boston Scientific officials ignored internal calls for more testing of the pelvic-organ implant and hurried the device along to counter competitors\u2019 products.<\/p>\r\n
In September, a state court jury in Texas ordered Boston Scientific to pay $73 million in damages to a woman who blamed one of its incontinence implants for her constant pain. That verdict was cut to $34.6 million by the trial judge. The company has won other cases that have gone to trial in state court in Massachusetts.<\/p>\r\n
23,000 Suits<\/h2>\r\n The Natick, Massachusetts-based company, the second-largest maker of heart-rhythm devices, faces more than 23,000 suits over its vaginal implants in U.S. state and federal courts, as well as in Canadian and U.K. courts, according to filings with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission. Boston Scientific pulled Pinnacle from the U.S. market in 2011.<\/p>\r\n
Many of the cases against Boston Scientific have been consolidated before U.S. District Judge Joseph Goodwin in Charleston, West Virginia. Others have been filed in state courts in Delaware, New Jersey, Missouri, Texas and California.<\/p>\r\n
Goodwin, who\u2019s overseeing all the vaginal-mesh suits filed in federal courts against Boston Scientific, presided over the trial of the four women\u2019s claims.<\/p>\r\n
Substandard Materials<\/h2>\r\n Women contend the inserts are made of substandard materials and often erode once they are implanted, causing pain and organ damage, and making sex uncomfortable.<\/p>\r\n
The women\u2019s lawyers presented evidence showing the mesh used in the Pinnacle insert hadn\u2019t been approved for use within the human body by the company that made it.<\/p>\r\n
Boston Scientific\u2019s lawyer told jurors in the Miami case the mesh used in the inserts has been relied upon for years by doctors and engineers properly designed the devices.<\/p>\r\n
\u201cThere\u2019s no such thing as a risk-free surgery,\u201d Hildy Sastre, one of the company\u2019s lawyers, told jurors. \u201cBecause somebody develops a complication, which they\u2019ve been clearly warned of, that doesn\u2019t mean there\u2019s a defect with the product.\u201d<\/p>\r\n
Boston Scientific is expected to face closing arguments Nov. 17 in another multi-plaintiff trial in federal court in West Virginia.<\/p>\r\n
The Florida case is Eghnayem v. Boston Scientific Corp., 14-cv-24061, U.S. District Court, Southern District of Florida (Miami).<\/p>\r\n
To contact the reporter on this story: Jef Feeley in Wilmington, Delaware at jfeeley@bloomberg.net<\/a><\/p>\r\nTo contact the editors responsible for this story: Michael Hytha at mhytha@bloomberg.net<\/a> Andrew Dunn<\/a>, Peter Blumberg<\/p>\r\n\u00a0<\/div>\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n
<\/span>\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n