Gilman Law LLP Announces Continued Prosecution of Transvaginal Mesh Lawsuits and Verdict of $100 Million

Gilman law is continuing to prosecute transvaginal mesh cases for women who have suffered debilitating transvaginal mesh complications following surgery to repair pelvic organ prolapse or stress

urinary incontinence.

A state court jury found yesterday that Boston Scientific’s Pinnacle and Advantage Fit inserts, built to

buttress sagging organs and treat incontinence in women, were defectively designed and that Boston

Scientific engaged in fraudulent concealment by failing to alert doctors and patients to the devices’ faulty design. The

jury awarded $100 million to a 51-year-old woman whose mesh eroded after it was implanted leaving

her with a scarred vagina and additional medical problems.

Boston Scientific, a Marlborough, Massachusetts-based company, agreed last month to settle a small amount of claims for

$119 million, based upon systemic damages for claims where inserts damaged women’s organs and

made sexual intercourse painful.

According to Gilman Law LLP, a leading pharmaceutical law and defective medical device plaintiffs’ law firm

that is currently representing women in transvaginal mesh lawsuits, serious settlement talks reportedly are now

underway to resolve this massive litigation.

On June 2, 2015, the Court will convene a joint status conference, as well as individual meetings with six

of the seven defendants – American Medical Systems, Boston Scientific, C.R. Bard, Coloplast, Cook

Medical and Ethicon – with the goal of moving closer to resolution.

Women who have received these devices may be at risk for a number of very serious and painful

complications, including:

• Mesh erosion through the vaginal tissue, possibly causing the skin to split
• Mesh extrusion and exposure.
• Perforation or puncture of bladder, intestines, bowels, and/or vaginal wall
• Protrusion or lump in the vaginal opening
• Recurrence of pelvic organ prolapse
• Recurrence of stress urinary incontinence
• Urinary problems
• Vaginal bleeding, pain and discomfort, chronic drainage, discharge, infections, scarring and/or shrinkage
• Painful sexual intercourse

Gilman Law LLP is providing complimentary lawsuit consultations to women who suffered severe

complications, including tremendous pain and suffering, following implantation of transvaginal mesh.

For more information, please contact Gilman Law LLP today by visiting our website, www.gilmanlawllp.com, to fill out a free, no obligation case evaluation form, or call Toll Free at 1-888-

252-0048.

About Gilman Law LLP

Gilman Law LLP, a leading pharmaceutical law and defective drug law firm, has been recognized for

delivering successful results to their clients across a broad range of claims stemming from consumer

product injury, mass tort, and class action lawsuits. For over 35 years, the Gilman Law LLP team of highly

experienced lawyers has earned renown for tireless work on behalf of their clients on many of today’s

most challenging and important legal issues.

Contact:
Kenneth G. Gilman
Gilman Law LLP
8951 Bonita Beach Road, S.E. Suite #525
Bonita Springs, FL 34135-4208
1-888-252-0048
kgilman@gilmanlawllp.com

Gilman Law LLP Investigating Zofran Birth Defect Lawsuits

Gilman Law LLP, a leading pharmaceutical law and defective medical device plaintiffs’ law firm, is now investigating potential Zofran birth defect lawsuits on behalf of children who were born with serious congenital defects, allegedly due to their mothers use of Zofran during the first trimester of pregnancy.

Zofran is not approved by the U.S. Food & Drug Administration (FDA) to treat morning sickness or hyperemesis gravidarum. However, a report published in the August 2014 issue of the American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology found that about 1 million pregnant women per year are exposed to Zofran or generic versions of ondansetron for this purpose.

Gilman Law LLP is seeking to hear from parents and caregivers of children who may have sustained any of the following birth defects due to prenatal Zofran exposure:

Zofran Birth Defects Lawsuit

• Heart defects, including septal defects (holes in the heart)
• Cleft lip and cleft palate
• Club foot
• Skull deformities (craniosynostosis)
• Musculoskeletal Defects
• Fetal growth restriction (poor growth in the womb)
• Kidney defects
• Hydronephrosis
• Hypospadia

Alleged victims of Zofran-related birth defects may be entitled to significant financial compensation from GlaxoSmithKline. However, potential claimants should be aware that all personal injury claims, including those involving Zofran, are subject to strict statutes of limitations that vary by state. Individuals seeking to file suit against GlaxoSmithKline are urged to contact Gilman Law LLP today, TOLL FREE at 888-252-0048, to ensure that their right to recovery is not placed in jeopardy.

Zofran is currently approved by the U.S. Food & Drug Administration (FDA) to treat nausea and vomiting related to chemotherapy, radiation treatments and surgery. The drug is listed by the agency in Pregnancy Category B, which indicates it has not been well studied for use in pregnancy.

In 2012, Glaxo resolved criminal and civil charges over the marketing of several drugs, including Zofran, and paid $3 billion as part of a settlement with the U.S. Department of Justice. Among other things, the company had been accused of promoting the use of Zofran as a treatment for morning sickness, even though it had not been approved for this purpose by the FDA.

Court documents indicate that more than a half dozen Zofran birth defect lawsuits have been filed in U.S. courts since February, all of which accuse GlaxoSmithKline of fraudulently marketing the medication as a safe and effective treatment for morning sickness. Most recently, a complaint was filed in the U.S. District Court, Eastern District of Arkansas, on behalf of a child who was born with a partial cleft lip after his mother took Zofran to control nausea and vomiting during her first trimester. Like similar complaints filed in recent months, the lawsuit accuses GlaxoSmithKline of concealing hundreds of reports linking Zofran to birth defects from regulators, doctors and patients. The complaint also notes that a number of studies have suggested that exposure to Zofran during the first trimester of pregnancy increases the likelihood for birth defects, including a 2.37 times increased risk of cleft palate; 2 times increased risk of a heart defect; and 20 percent increased risk of any birth defect. (Case No. 15-284)

Gilman Law LLP is providing complimentary Zofran lawsuit consultations to families who believe their baby was harmed by this drug. For more information, please contact Gilman Law LLP today by visiting our website, www.gilmanlawllp.com, to fill out a free, no obligation case evaluation form, or call Toll Free at 1-888-252-0048.

About Gilman Law LLP
Gilman Law LLP, a leading pharmaceutical law and defective drug law firm, has been recognized for delivering successful results to their clients across a broad range of claims stemming from consumer product injury, mass tort, and class action lawsuits. For over 40 years, the Gilman Law LLP team of highly experienced lawyers has earned renown for tireless work on behalf of their clients on many of today’s most challenging and important legal issues.

Contact:

Gilman Law LLP

8951 Bonita Beach Road, S.E. Suite #525

Bonita Springs, FL 34135-4208

1-888-252-0048

kgilman@gilmanlawllp.com

Woman Awarded $100 Million by Jury In Mesh Lawsuit

Gilman Law LLP reports that a Delaware court jury has awarded a woman $100 million for her claims against Boston Scientific relating to the company’s transvaginal mesh inserts, a device that is the subject of more than 25,000 lawsuits against the company. The Delaware jury found that Boston Scientific’s Pinnacle and Advantage Fit inserts were negligently and defectively designed, that Boston Scientific had engaged in fraud, and that the company’s executives hid the defects from the plaintiff, who had alleged that the inserts eroded once they were implanted, causing great pain and scarring.

The jury awarded $25 million in compensatory damages and $75 million in punitive damages. The jury award is the largest thus far against Boston Scientific relating its vaginal-mesh inserts, and the first since the company agreed to pay $119 million to resolve approximately 3,000 lawsuits in the first wave of settlements of claims that the inserts caused damage to various women’s organs and resulted in painful sexual
intercourse.

Transvaginal Mesh Lawsuit Attorneys at Gilman Law LLP Urge Victims of Pelvic Mesh Complications to Come Forward Now, As Serious Settlement Talks Reportedly Are Currently Underway

Women who have suffered debilitating transvaginal mesh complications following surgery to repair pelvic organ prolapse or stress urinary incontinence are urged to seek legal advice today if they have not already done so. According to Gilman Law LLP, a leading pharmacy law and defective medical device plaintiffs’ law firm that is currently representing women in transvaginal mesh lawsuits, serious settlement talks reportedly are now underway to resolve this massive litigation. Court documents indicate that more than 75,000 transvaginal mesh lawsuits have been filed in the various litigations pending in the U.S. District Court, Southern District of West Virginia, including:

• In Re: American Medical Systems, Inc., Pelvic Repair Systems Products Liability Litigation (MDL No. 2405)
• In Re: Boston Scientific Corp., Pelvic Repair System Products Liability Litigation (MDL No. 2406)
• In Re: C. R. Bard, Inc., Pelvic Repair System Products Liability Litigation (MDL No. 2187)
• In Re: Coloplast Corp. Pelvic Support System Products Liability Litigation (MDL No. 2387)
• In Re: Cook Medical, Inc., Pelvic Repair System Products Liability Litigation (MDL No. 2440)
• In Re: Ethicon, Inc. Pelvic Repair Systems Products Liability Litigation (MDL No. 2407)
• In Re: Neomedic Pelvic Repair System Products Liability Litigation (MDL No. 2511)

On June 2^nd, the Court will convene a joint status conference, as well as individual meetings with six of the seven defendants – American Medical Systems, Boston Scientific, C.R. Bard, Coloplast, Cook Medical and Ethicon – with the goal of moving closer to resolution.

Transvaginal Mesh Settlements

Several defendants involved in the transvaginal mesh litigations have already reached settlements in a small number of claims. Most recently, Boston Scientific disclosed that it had resolved some 2,900 of the nearly 15,000 cases involving its pelvic mesh products. According to the company, the settlements will cost it around $119 million. In January, Ethicon announced that it had reached transvaginal mesh settlements in four cases for undisclosed amounts. The company still faces nearly 23,000 claims in state and federal courts. In March 2014, Coloplast entered into an agreement to settle 400 claims for a total of $16 million. C.R. Bard, which has been named as a defendant in more than 10,000 vaginal mesh lawsuits, announced last October that it had resolved about 500 claims for a total of $21 million, or an average of $43,000 per case. That same month, Endo International PLC, the parent company of American Medical Systems, reached an agreement to settle nearly all of the claims involving its pelvic mesh products for more than $400 million. In reaching these transvaginal mesh lawsuit settlements, none of the defendants have admitted any liability for patients’ alleged injuries.

The Food & Drug Administration (FDA) issued its first communication regarding the dangers associated with transvaginal mesh in October 2008, and followed up with a second public warning in July 2011. According to the FDA, transvaginal mesh complications following pelvic organ prolapse repair are not rare. What’s more, the agency also stated that it is “not clear that transvaginal POP repair with mesh is any more effective than traditional [transvaginal surgery without mesh] … and may expose patients to greater risk.” Women who have received these devices may be at risk for a number of very serious and painful complications, including:

• Mesh erosion through the vaginal tissue, possibly causing the skin to split
• Mesh extrusion and exposure.
• Perforation or puncture of bladder, intestines, bowels, and/or vaginal wall
• Protrusion or lump in the vaginal opening
• Recurrence of pelvic organ prolapse
• Recurrence of stress urinary incontinence
• Urinary problems
• Vaginal bleeding, pain and discomfort, chronic drainage, discharge, infections, scarring and/or shrinkage
• Painful sexual intercourse

Gilman Law LLP is providing complimentary lawsuit consultations to women who suffered severe complications, including tremendous pain and suffering, following implantation of transvaginal mesh. For more information, please contact Gilman Law LLP today by visiting our website, www.gilmanlawllp.com, to fill out a free, no obligation case evaluation form, or call Toll Free at 1-888-252-0048.

About Gilman Law LLP

Gilman Law LLP, a leading pharmaceutical law and defective drug law firm, has been recognized for delivering successful results to their clients across a broad range of claims stemming from consumer product injury, mass tort, and class action lawsuits. For over 40 years, the Gilman Law LLP team of highly experienced lawyers has earned renown for tireless work on behalf of their clients on many of today’s most challenging and important legal issues.

Contact:
Gilman Law LLP
8951 Bonita Beach Road, S.E. Suite #525
Bonita Springs, FL 34135-4208
1-888-252-0048
kgilman@gilmanlawllp.com

Gilman Law LLP is pursuing a securities class action lawsuit against Lumber Liquidators Holdings, Inc. (“Lumber Liquidators” or the “Company”) and certain officers and/or directors of the Company.

According to a filing in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia (No. 4:13-cv-00157) (“Virginia Case”) on behalf of all persons or entities who purchased or otherwise acquired Lumber Liquidators common stock (NYSE:LL) between February 22, 2012 and July 9, 2014, certain false and/or misleading statements were made by Lumber Liquidators in violation of federal law.

According to Lumber Liquidators’ website, the Company is headquartered in Toano, Virginia, has stores in 46 states, and is the nation’s largest retailer of hardwood flooring.

The Virginia Case against Lumber Liquidators is generally focused on two key areas of alleged misconduct. First, the plaintiff alleges that Lumber Liquidators made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that certain of Lumber Liquidators’ products did not comply with applicable laws and regulations pertaining to formaldehyde emissions from composite wood products.

Second, the Wall Street Journal  previously reported, and the Company confirms in its securities filings, that federal authorities, including agents from the Department of Homeland Security Investigations and the Department of Justice, executed search warrants at the headquarters of Lumber Liquidators on September 26, 2013 looking for information relating to the importation of certain of its wood flooring products.  The Virginia Case alleges that Lumber Liquidators violated the Lacey Act, which bans the import and trade of illegally sourced wood products.  The Company notes in a recent securities filing that the Department of Justice is contemplating seeking criminal charges against Lumber Liquidators under the Lacey Act.

On March 1, 2015, 60 Minutes ran a story focusing on the excessive formaldehyde levels contained in certain laminate flooring Lumber Liquidators purchased from manufacturers in China.  As reported by 60 Minutes, certain of those manufacturers admitted that certain flooring manufactured for Lumber Liquidators was not CARB Phase 2 compliant even though it was labeled as such. CARB Phase 2 compliant refers to compliance with certain California formaldehyde emissions standards.

If you are an investor who purchased Lumber Liquidators common stock on or after January 1, 2011, and continues to hold any of the stock purchased as of the present date, and suffered a loss or would like more information concerning Lumber Liquidators’ products, then please contact Gilman Law LLP today, at 1-888-252-0048 or www.investment-losses.com, to ensure your legal rights are not forfeited.

About Gilman Law LLP

Gilman Law LLP, a leading financial law firm, has been recognized for delivering successful results to their clients across a broad range of claims stemming from securities class actions and derivative actions to consumer product injury lawsuits.  For over 35 years, the Gilman Law LLP team of highly experienced lawyers has earned renown for tireless work on behalf of their clients on many of today’s most challenging and important legal issues.

Contact: Kenneth G. Gilman

1-888-252-0048

Gilman Law, LLP recently initiated a nationwide class action against The Home Depot, Inc. in connection with its much publicized data breach.  The suit seeks to remedy Home Depot customers’ exposure to potential damages due to identity theft and invokes provisions of both state and federal law.  If your personal or financial information has been exposed in connection with the Home Depot data breach, we encourage you to contact our Consumer Protection Attorneys for a free consultation by calling Toll free at (888) 252-0048 or complete our Free Consultation Form.

Consumers in one state might finally get some relief from the force-placed insurance market that has ruined the credit of so many property owners, and forced untold numbers into foreclosure and bankruptcy. On September 19^th, New York Governor Andrew Cuomo announced that the state was proposing new rules that, among other things, would forbid the kinds of kickbacks between insurers and mortgage lenders that allowed premiums for force-placed insurance to skyrocket.

“Two years ago, my administration launched an investigation of the force-placed insurance industry that revealed widespread abuses of consumers by banks and mortgage companies,” Governor Cuomo said in a statement issued by the New York Department of Financial Services. “Today we are taking a major step in righting this injustice and reforming the industry by proposing tough new regulations to protect homeowners. Insurers should be on notice that New York State is going to continue rooting out abuse in the industry and protecting taxpayers.”

If adopted, the rules will only apply to force-placed insurance that is imposed on properties in New York State. But the development could bode well for consumers around the country who have filed force-placed insurance lawsuits against some of the nation’s biggest banks and mortgage servicers. Now that they know that regulators are paying attention, banks, mortgage servicers and insurers will be facing increasing pressure to resolve these claims.

Now is the Time to File a Forced-Place Insurance Lawsuit

If your credit was ruined, or you were driven to foreclosure after your mortgage lender force-placed expensive hazard, flood or wind insurance on your home, now is the time to act! Gilman Law LLP, a leading consumer protection law firm for over 40 years that is already representing numerous property owners in force-placed insurance actions, believes that some claimants could be entitled to compensation equaling as much as 200% of the premiums they were assessed for expensive force-placed insurance policies. That’s because it’s become apparent that banks and insurers engaged in predatory practices and colluded in ways that resulted in consumers being charged exorbitant premiums for force-placed wind, hazard and flood insurance policies that, in most cases, afforded them much less protection than standard insurance and ultimately resulted in ruining the credit of many property owners and causing undue hardship.

Gilman Law LLP is continuing to offer free, no-obligation legal evaluations to consumers who may have been victimized by the force-placed insurance market anywhere in the United States. Some of the banks and mortgage servicers subject to the firm’s investigation include:

• Bank of America
•  HSBC
• Green Tree
• Nationstar
• Chase
• Citizens Bank
• OCWEN
• US Bank
• Ally Financial, Inc., formerly GMAC
• Others force-placed through insurance companies such as Assurant, American Security, QBE, and others.

If any of these lenders held or serviced a mortgage on your home and force-placed wind, flood or hazard insurance on your property, it is vitally important that you contact Gilman Law LLP today, at 1-888-252-0048. Force-placed insurance lawsuits are subject to strict statutes-of-limitations that set a firm deadline by which a claim must be filed. Time could be running out on your potential lawsuit, which could result in it being barred.

What is Force-Placed Insurance?

Many mortgage contracts allow lenders to impose wind, hazard, flood or other coverage on a property if the owner has allowed required policies to lapse, unfortunately, our investigations and recent regulatory investigations have found that banks and insurers took advantage of this system during the housing crisis, and used it as an opportunity to line their own pockets while they fleeced consumers.

The New York State investigation found that premiums charged to homeowners for force-placed insurance can be two to ten times higher than premiums for voluntary insurance. According to regulators, these ridiculously high premiums were driven by a “troubling web of kick-backs and payoffs at certain force-placed insurers,” that gave lenders and mortgage servicers an incentive to purchase needlessly expensive policies.

If you would like more information about the force-placed insurance actions that Gilman Law LLP is currently involved in, or to have your own claim evaluated, please fill out the online form on this page, or call 1-888-252-0048 to contact our attorneys today.

Would you let your mortgage lender or servicer purchase wind, hazard or flood insurance on your home? For most homeowners, the answer would be a resounding no. Yet force-placed insurance, which has proven to be financially ruinous for many consumers, is more common than you might think.

Although many mortgage contracts allow a bank to force-place coverage for wind, flood or hazard insurance on a property if the owner fails to maintain required coverage, while once rare, the chaos created by the housing crises has made the force-placing of insurance an all-to-common occurrence in recent years.  Unfortunately, force-placed policies generally cost as much as 10-times more, and offer far less protection, compared to standard insurance policies most people can obtain on their own. For many already-struggling property owners, hefty premiums for a forced-placed policy were what finally drove them into foreclosure.

Regulators Set Their Sights on Force-Placed Insurance Market

Our recent investigations and others by state regulators have found that collusion between banks and insurers made this sad situation far worse than it needed to be. For example, last year an investigation by the New York Department of Financial Service determined that profit sharing between lenders and insurers inflated the price of force-placed insurance by creating incentives for banks and mortgage servicers to buy policies with high premiums

“Our investigation found that insurers and banks built a network of troubling relationships and payoffs that helped drive premiums sky-high,” Benjamin M. Lawsky, New York’s top financial regulator, said earlier this year. “Those improper practices created significant conflicts of interest and saddled homeowners, taxpayers and investors with millions of dollars in unfair and unnecessary costs.”

New York recently reached a large settlement with Assurant, one of the largest providers of force-placed insurance. According to a report from The New York Times, the settlement included several provisions that prohibit some commissions and expenses.  And in September 2013, Governor Andrew Cuomo proposed new regulations that would, among other things, eliminate kickbacks in the industry that drove up premiums.

What to Do If You’ve Been the Victim of Force-Placed Insurance

If you were forced into foreclosure or had your credit ruined because of force-placed insurance, you do have rights. Right now, hundreds of consumers around the country are seeking compensation against banks and insurers that may have engaged in predatory practices and improperly force-placed insurance on their homes. Gilman Law LLP is already representing numerous plaintiffs in force-placed insurance lawsuits, and continues to investigate claims against a number of big mortgage lenders, including:

• Bank of America
•  HSBC
• Green Tree
• Nationstar
• Chase
• Citizens Bank
• OCWEN
• US Bank
• Ally Financial, Inc., formerly GMAC
• Insurers: Assurant, American Security, QBE, and Balboa

Now that regulators are finally paying attention, consumers may face their best chance for receiving compensation for the financial harm they suffered due to the industry’s unscrupulous practices. The attorneys at Gilman Law LLP believe that in some cases, homeowners who had insurance imposed on their property could be due damages equal to as much as 20% of the premiums they were assessed for force-placed policies.

Victims of force-placed insurance only have a limited time in which to act. To make sure your claim for restitution isn’t time barred by your state’s statute of limitations, please contact Gilman Law LLP by filling out our online free consultation form, or CALL TOLL FREE (888) 252-0048.