Confidential Study for Plaintiffs involved in Women's Health MDLs

If you’re a plaintiff in the lawsuits against pelvic mesh manufacturers or against talcum powder distributors, I’d love to hear from you.

I’m a law professor at the University of Georgia School of Law who is conducting a project that gives plaintiffs a chance to confidentially discuss their experience with the justice system—the judges, the lawyers, and any third-party funders (you can read more about me here). This study has been discussed in the N.Y. Times, Reuters, The Daily Report, and Law.com. More information about the study is available here, and here is a link directly to the survey.

I am incredibly thankful to those of you who have taken the time to participate already, and I am deeply grateful to have gotten to know some of the amazing trailblazers in the many mesh communities. Your dogged commitment to promoting change despite so many hardships inspires me every single day.

As most of you know already, I am not in any way affiliated with or related to any of the lawyers or parties on either side of these disputes. I do not consult for anyone, nor do I take advertising revenue, etc. I have no clients, and I have no connections whatsoever that would affect my data collection or analysis. In short, I am a completely independent researcher. My funding comes entirely from the University of Georgia.

I have included a few of the frequently asked questions below, but I am always happy to answer your questions individually (masstortsuga@gmail.com or 706-542-5203).

How can you assure me confidentiality?

In order for me to conduct research on people, I have to go through the University of Georgia’s “IRB process.” I am under very strict rules that prohibit me from disclosing the identities of any of those who are involved and will assign participant identification codes to those who opt to participate. I will keep the key to those codes in a separate location with restricted, encrypted access that is available only to me and will permanently destroy that list as soon as the data collection has finished.

I also set up a separate email for participants to use to contact me since my University of Georgia email is subject to open records act requests. If you have any questions at all about the study, please contact me at masstortsuga@gmail.com. That ensures that someone can’t try to gain your confidential information with a Freedom of Information Act request.

I am subject to all of the restrictions in the Human Research Protection Program Investigator’s Manual and have taken extensive courses on the importance of protecting confidential information and the methods for doing so. If you have any questions or concerns regarding your rights as a research participant in this study, you may also contact the Institutional Review Board (IRB) Chairperson at 706.542.3199 or irb@uga.edu.

Are you going to ask me confidential information about my case or settlement?

No. If you agree to participate, you will be asked to answer questions about whether you had opportunities to tell your side of the story and present evidence, how you felt your lawyer handled your case, how you felt about the process and your outcome, and whether you used third-party funding.

For example, I will ask you things like what you hoped your lawsuit would accomplish and whether you feel that it met your goal, whether your lawyer kept you informed about your lawsuit, and what opportunities you had to participate in the proceedings.

What cases are you considering and why?

I am considering all of the cases in which the defendant corporation primarily targeted or advertised its product or medical device to women. I care about whether you were satisfied (or not) when you interacted with the justice system and with your attorneys. I would like to hear from plaintiffs who participated in these actions in both state and federal court.

The MDL cases that I have identified as targeting or advertising its product or medical device primarily to women include:

· In re A.H. Robins Co., Inc., "Dalkon Shield" IUD Products Liability Litigation

· In re American Medical Systems, Inc., Pelvic Repair System Products Liability Litigation

· In re Boston Scientific Corp. Pelvic Repair System Products Liability Litigation

· In re C.R. Bard, Inc., Pelvic Repair System Products Liability Litigation

· In re Coloplast Corp. Pelvic Support Systems Products Liability Litigation

· In re Cook Medical, Inc. Pelvic Repair System Products Liability Litigation

· In re Diet Drugs (Phentermine, Fenfluramine, Dexfenfluramine) Products Liability Litigation

· In re Ephedra Products Liability Litigation

· In re Ethicon, Inc., Pelvic Repair System Products Liability Litigation

· In re Ethicon, Inc., Power Morcellator Products Liability Litigation

· In re Fosamax Products Liability Litigation

· In re Johnson & Johnson Talcum Powder Products Marketing, Sales Practices and Products Liability Litigation

· In re Mentor Corp. ObTape Transobturator Sling Products Liability Litigation

· In re Mirena IUD Products Liablity Litigation

· In re Mirena IUS Levonorgestrel-Related Products Liability Litigation (No. II)

· In re MONAT Hair Care Products Marketing, Sales Practices and Products Liability Litigation

· In re Neomedic Pelvic Repair System Products Liability Litigation

· In re Norplant Contraceptive Products Liability Litigation

· In re NuvaRing Products Liability Litigation

· In re Ortho Evra Products Liability Litigation

· In re Prempro Products Liability Litigation

· In re ProteGen Sling and Vesica Systems Products Liability Litigation

· In re Rio Hair Naturalizer Products Liability Litigation

· In re Silicone Gel Breast Implants Products Liability Litigation

· In re Yasmin and Yaz (Drospirenone) Marketing, Sales Practices and Products Liability Litigation