Federal Appellate Court Affirms $500000 Pelvic Mesh Jury Verdict: After delivering four children, Raeann Bayless experienced symptoms of stress urinary incontinence and pelvic organ prolapse. To try to treat these conditions, she underwent a surgical operation in which two polypropylene meshes—including Coloplast Corp.’s Restorelle Y—were inserted into her pelvic region. But the surgery did not cure her ailments. Bayless continued to experience debilitating symptoms, and she was ultimately diagnosed with vaginal erosion.
Bayless attributed her post-operation injuries to the products inserted during surgery and brought suit against Coloplast and another manufacturer alleging, among other things, that Restorelle Y is defectively designed and that it caused her injuries. After an eleven-day trial, a jury agreed on these points and awarded her $500,000 in compensatory damages.
Coloplast appealed the jury’s verdict, arguing that Bayless did not present sufficient evidence to establish general causation and that Restorelle Y’s risks outweighed its benefits.
The United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit (“Federal Appellate Court”) stated in its February 2, 2023 opinion: “Coloplast does not dispute that Bayless presented sufficient evidence of specific causation. In other words, it effectively concedes that a jury could find that Restorelle Y caused Bayless’s particular post-operation injuries. Coloplast contends only that Bayless did not present sufficient evidence of general causation—that is, that Restorelle Y is even capable of causing the type of injuries that Bayless suffered. We cannot agree. The testimony presented at trial provided ample evidence for the jury to reasonably conclude that Restorelle Y is capable of causing Bayless’s injuries. Because Restorelle Y is a polypropylene mesh, the jury could impute the evidence about polypropylene and its properties to Restorelle Y. And the jury heard testimony about the specific injuries Restorelle Y inflicted on Bayless. So it could have reasonably inferred that Restorelle Y was capable of causing those types of injuries … the jury could have relied on Dr. Rosenzweig’s testimony about specific causation—combined with Dr. Mays’s testimony about polypropylene—to infer that the general causation requirement was satisfied.”
The Federal Appellate Court further stated: “Coloplast argues that Dr. Mays’s testimony here does not link the properties of polypropylene mesh to the risks and benefits of Restorelle Y. But Dr. Mays’s testimony explained the risk that mesh will stiffen in the body and that the resulting loss in flexibility will affect its performance. And the jury could connect Dr. Mays’s testimony about polypropylene mesh to Restorelle Y. And Dr. Rosenzweig’s testimony about the medical risks of polypropylene mesh filled in any missing links to the medical risks of Restorelle Y.”
The Federal Appellate Court held: “A jury observed eleven days’ worth of evidence from several fact and expert witnesses. And it reasonably concluded that Restorelle Y’s risks outweighed its benefits. Its decision neither obviates Florida’s risk-utility test nor creates absolute liability for prescription-only products. The evidence presented at trial drove the outcome here. Based on the evidence presented at trial, a jury could reasonably conclude that sufficient evidence supported a finding of general causation and a finding that Restorelle Y’s risks outweighed its benefits.
For these reasons, we affirm the district court’s judgment and dismiss Bayless’s cross-appeal as moot.”
Source Bayless v. Boston Scientific Company, Case No. 21-14397.
If you or a family member were implanted with pelvic mesh or other surgical mesh and suffered complications, injuries, or chronic pain afterwards, you should find a mesh claim lawyer in your U.S. state who may investigate your mesh claim for you and represent you or your family member in a claim against the manufacturer, distributor, and/or supplier of the mesh, if appropriate.
Visit our website or call us toll-free in the United States at 800-295-3959 to find mesh claim attorneys who may assist you.
Turn to us when you don’t know where to turn.