Cardenas v Boston Scientific – Jury Questions as They Deliberate

//Cardenas v Boston Scientific – Jury Questions as They Deliberate

Cardenas v Boston Scientific – Jury Questions as They Deliberate

Maria Cardenas, Monday August 18

Maria Cardenas, Monday August 18

The latest in the Cardenas case!

The case has gone to the jury, but it doesn’t appear a verdict will come immediately.  Maria Cardenas was implanted with a Boston Scientific Obtryx sling to treat incontinence.  She claims she is permanently injured.

See Mesh News Desk trial coverage here.

On Thursday, August 28th, the jurors in Cardenas  v. Boston Scientific posed two questions to the judge in a Middlesex Co. courtroom.  They asked  the definition of the terms- “detruser instability”, and of the word “dehiscence” of a vaginal incision.

Judge told them they couldn’t look up the words and she could not answer the question.  They would have to decide for themselves based on the evidence in the case.

They can’t look but we can.

According to a medical dictionary, dehiscence means the splitting opened the layers of a surgical wound see here.

For the definition of  Detruser Instability see here.

“Detrusor instability is a urodynamic diagnosis of bladder overactivity defined by objectively demonstrable bladder contractions whilst the patient is trying to inhibit micturition….”

Jurors also requested an early recess Friday, August 29 at 1pm so they could return to deliberate Tuesday  September 2.

Read More on the case in Lexis Nexis here.

 

 

By | 2017-06-03T15:12:02+00:00 August 29th, 2014|Legal News|6 Comments

About the Author:

I’m National News Editor, Jane Akre and I began Mesh Medical Device News Desk aka Mesh News Desk (MND) in the summer of 2011 just after the Food and Drug Administration issued an explicit warning to the public that complications associated with surgical mesh used for prolapse repair (POP) and incontinence (SUI) are NOT rare! That was the starting point for the litigation you see today and thousands of lawsuits have been filed by women whose lives have been altered, some permanently, by the use of this petroleum-based product.

6 Comments

  1. NiNee August 29, 2014 at 9:54 am - Reply

    Why can’t the juror’s look for the definition of the words? Or, can’t the judge have someone else look up the definition & hand it to the jurors? That makes no sense. I really wonder about this judge, especially after the 1st BS trial.

    Thank you for the update, Jane.

  2. NiNee August 29, 2014 at 1:50 pm - Reply

    The verdict came back in favor of Boston Scientific, again. Unbelievable!!!

    • Jane Akre August 29, 2014 at 9:48 pm - Reply

      A march in the streets might stop that …. it’s getting that necessary.!!!!!

      • Pam August 30, 2014 at 10:57 pm - Reply

        I agree Jane!!!!!!!!! Ive considered mounting my recliner to a mobile disability cart, and show folks how ive been having to sit the remainder of my life…..

        It’s a far cry from “Sitting or Reclining” i will say!!! Such a shame that explanations can NOT be given!! Why not just have the Jury be Doctors in these cases?! Geez!! Dont these people see it’s not about MONEY, but it surely is for these lawyers, and Pharma Companies!!

        Wake UP!!! Im willing to MARCH and SHOUT!!

  3. Debi August 29, 2014 at 2:04 pm - Reply

    Omg, I don’t understand how the juries are coming back with verdicts to Boston Scientific. What about her pain and suffering. Had my first removal done just 8 weeks ago with Dr. Raz at UCLA. Have to have more reconstruction surgery done in 5 months. This mesh destroyed me and these juries come back with verdicts for defendants. How unfair for all the woman out there:(

  4. jade August 30, 2014 at 9:53 am - Reply

    DISCLAIMER: These trials brought to you by the State of Massachusetts Court System, a paid representative of Boston Scientific Corp.

Leave A Comment