Featured
Verdicts & Settlements

$78.5 Million Verdict in Philadelphia Cerebral Palsy Case

$40.5 Million Settlement in Gas Explosion and Fire Case

$31 Million Jury Verdict against County of Camden, N.J. in Auto Accident Case

$26.1 Million Settlement in Philadelphia Tractor-Trailer Auto Accident

$22.4 Million Verdict for Botched Spine Surgery

$20 Million Settlement of Central Pennsylvania Cerebral Palsy Case

$18 Million Settlement for Family in Phila. House Fire Case

$16.05 Million Settlement of Massachusetts Birth Injury Case

$16 Million Settlement for Negligent Management of Labor and Delivery Causing Cerebral Palsy

$16 Million Verdict in Obstetric Malpractice Case

$15 Million Verdict for Surgeon's Failure to Properly Repair Broken Ankle

$14 Million Settlement for Sixty-Eight Year Old Man Killed in Tractor Trailer Accident

$13.3 Million Settlement for Injured Worker in Construction Accident

$12 Million Settlement of Neonatal Malpractice Case

$11.8 Million Settlement of Central Florida Birth Injury Case

$11.3 Million Settlement for Injured Worker in California Construction Accident

$11 Million Settlement in Lackawanna County by Philadelphia Attorney

$11 Million Settlement For Injuries in a Trucking Accident

$10.24 Million Settlement for Negligent Obstetrics Case in New York

$10 Million Settlement of California Kernicterus/Cerebral Palsy Case

   
   

Contact Us

 
Please be advised that your submission does not create an attorney-client relationship. Please click here to read the full disclaimer.
 
 
 

Verdicts & Settlements

Confidential Settlement Reached in Bladder Sling Defective Medical Device Case

After years of contentious litigation, attorneys Mark W. Tanner  and Peter M. Newman  reached a confidential settlement for a woman who suffered years of painful and embarrassing complications following surgical implantation of a bladder sling to treat her urinary incontinence. With support from a team of renowned experts, Plaintiffs alleged that the sling manufacturer was motivated by financial gain to rush the sling to market without conducting clinical trials and to disseminate misleading data regarding the efficacy of its untested product. The defendant blamed the implanting surgeon for the post-operative complications, arguing that the Plaintiff was not a good candidate for the sling procedure due to her diabetes and that the surgeon did not follow proper surgical technique.

Plaintiff’s retained an Ivy League Professor of Bioengineering, who was prepared to testify that the product manufacturer failed to follow well-established procedures for testing its new device, including in vitro evaluation under functional conditions, in vivo evaluation in appropriate animal models, and clinical trials. Plaintiff’s Ph.D. immunologist was a specialist in the development of collagen coatings for implanted synthetic materials, like the bladder sling in question. He had examined dozens of explanted bladder slings and prepared a report explaining why the Plaintiff’s complications were caused by the manufacturer’s choice of sling material, which did not promote tissue ingrowth as designed, which did not resist infection as the manufacturer claimed, and which caused erosion of adjacent vaginal and urethral tissues. Plaintiff’s regulatory affairs expert, the former Chief Medical Officer in the FDA’s Office of Device Evaluation, testified at deposition that FDA approval of the device did not relieve the manufacturer of its duty to conduct clinical testing to ensure that its device was safe, effective and adequately labeled.

Tanner and Newman deposed the implanting surgeon who revealed that the defendant’s sales representatives were present in the operating room when he implanted Plaintiff’s sling, and that he followed their guidelines precisely.  Plaintiffs also retained a Professor of Urogynecology who specializes in the treatment of female urinary incontinence, and a Board-certified Urologist, who had each treated hundreds of patients with urinary incontinence. Each testified at deposition that the implanting surgeon followed proper surgical technique and that the device manufacturer had misled the surgeon to believe the sling had a long track record of effectiveness when, in fact, the Plaintiff was one of the first to receive the device.
 
 
Although we do not intend this website to be advertising for our legal services, it may be considered advertising in some jurisdictions. We seek to comply with all laws and ethical rules of the jurisdictions where our offices are located, but cannot guarantee that this website meets local requirements throughout the United States. We do not seek to represent anyone based upon their viewing this website in a jurisdiction where this website does not conform to local requirements. This website is not an offer to perform legal services in any jurisdiction other than those in which we are licensed to practice, as set forth in the individual descriptions of our lawyers.

This website may contain references to various matters that have been handled by Feldman, Shepherd, Wohlgelernter, Tanner, Weinstock & Dodig LLP. The results portrayed in those matters were dependent upon the facts of those particular cases, and results will differ if based on different facts. Because every case is different, the descriptions of awards and cases previously handled are not intended to imply or guarantee success in other cases. This website may also contain references to past and present clients. Such references are not intended to be testimonials or endorsements of Feldman, Shepherd, Wohlgelernter, Tanner, Weinstock & Dodig LLP and they do not constitute a guarantee, warranty, or prediction regarding the outcome of your legal matter.

Feldman Shepherd Wohlgelernter Tanner Weinstock & Dodig, LLP attorneys are licensed in Pennsylvania, New Jersey, New York and Texas. Our attorneys also sometimes practice in other states on a pro hac vice basis. Pro hac vice admission is when a lawyer not licensed in a particular state associates with a lawyer who is licensed in that state and obtains the court’s permission to jointly represent a client in a specific matter.
Please click here to read our full disclaimer language.
© Feldman Shepherd Wohlgelernter Tanner Weinstock & Dodig LLP         Attorney Advertising         Disclaimer         Privacy Policy         Site Map
Personal Injury | Medical Malpractice | Auto Defects | Forklift Accidents | Tire Defects | Cerebral Palsy | Construction Accidents | Crashworthiness | Spinal Injury | Product Liability | Car Fires | Air Bag Defects