Lawsuit Information Center

July 30, 2026

Vaginal Mesh Lawsuit

Women are still filing vaginal mesh lawsuits and bladder sling lawsuits in 2026, but this is no longer the enormous federal mass tort it was a decade ago. The old federal MDLs have closed. Most legacy claims have been resolved, and the remaining litigation is concentrated in individual cases and state-court dockets, including active Johnson & Johnson and Ethicon pelvic mesh cases in New Jersey.

A viable case now depends less on the history of the prior litigation and more on specific evidence: the manufacturer and product, the date of implantation, mesh erosion or another documented complication, revision surgery, and medical evidence linking the implant to the injury. Our lawyers are currently focused on selected claims involving products from Johnson & Johnson/Ethicon and Coloplast. We are not accepting new Boston Scientific mesh claims.

Substantively updated: July 30, 2026

July 30, 2026

Hernia Mesh Lawsuit

by Ronald V. Miller, Jr.

Currently, thousands of hernia mesh lawsuits are pending in courts across the country. Our hernia mesh lawyers are handling these cases in all 50 states. This page:

Discusses this litigation
Provides the latest 2026 updates and the latest hernia mesh Bard MDL-2846 news on the settlement

July 29, 2026

Bard PowerPort Lawsuit

by Ronald V. Miller, Jr.

Bard PowerPort lawsuits allege that defects in implanted port catheters can cause fractures, migration, blood clots, infections, embolisms, and other serious complications. Thousands of product liability lawsuits are now pending against Bard and its parent company, Becton Dickinson, in a federal multidistrict litigation in Arizona.

The first bellwether trial ended with a partial defense verdict and a deadlocked jury on the central design defect claim. The next trial, Divelbliss v. C.R. Bard, is scheduled to begin on August 18, 2026. It involves an alleged fracture of a silicone Groshong catheter. Five bellwether trials are now expected to run through February 2027. Our lawyers remain bullish on well-documented fracture, migration, and embolization cases. Infection-only claims may face harder causation arguments and could receive lower settlement offers if Bard eventually proposes a global resolution.

This page provides the latest Bard PowerPort lawsuit updates, projected settlement amounts, and information about who may qualify to file a claim. No global settlement has been announced, and all payout estimates remain speculative.

July 29, 2026

Spinal Cord Stimulator Lawsuit

by Ronald V. Miller, Jr.

A spinal cord stimulator is an implantable medical device used to manage chronic pain, most often involving the back or spine. These systems are marketed as a way to reduce pain by interrupting nerve signals before they reach the brain. But for a growing number of patients, the device fails to help. It introduces new and sometimes permanent problems, including electrical shocks, burning pain, infections, lead migration, hardware failure, and repeat surgeries to reposition or remove equipment that was supposed to improve quality of life.

This page explains spinal cord stimulator lawsuits and why they are being filed nationwide. It focuses on what patients are alleging, how these devices have failed in real-world use, and why many of these cases go beyond ordinary medical malpractice claims. The most serious lawsuits do not center on a single surgical mistake. They examine how modern spinal cord stimulators were designed, tested, and approved, and whether patients were ever adequately warned about the risks that now recur repeatedly in medical records and FDA reports.

Many people arrive here with a practical question in mind: what do spinal cord stimulator settlement amounts look like, and how does compensation get calculated when a device causes lasting harm? That question cannot be answered in isolation. Settlement amounts and payouts are driven by the full medical timeline, including the costs of repeat surgeries, explantation, and permanent loss of function, as well as the downstream consequences when a pain-management device leaves someone worse off than before it was implanted.

July 29, 2026

Depo Provera Lawsuit Settlements

by Ronald V. Miller, Jr.

This page is for women considering filing a Depo-Provera lawsuit. Our lawyers provide the latest updates, explain the litigation and settlement process, and offer our assessment of potential Depo-Provera settlement amounts.

Scientific research has found a strong association between prolonged use of injectable medroxyprogesterone acetate, the active drug in Depo-Provera, and intracranial meningioma. Women who received Depo-Provera injections and were later diagnosed with a meningioma are filing lawsuits alleging that Pfizer and related companies failed to provide an adequate warning.

Our attorneys are reviewing these cases nationwide. If you believe you may have a Depo-Provera claim, call us at 800-553-8082 or contact us online.

July 29, 2026

Ozempic Lawsuit

by Ronald V. Miller, Jr.

Our lawyers are investigating Ozempic lawsuits for patients with NAION, gastroparesis or gastrointestinal conditions, including bowel obstruction or cyclic vomiting syndrome.

Ozempic is the popular brand name for semaglutide, a prescription drug approved for the treatment of type 2 diabetes. As we all know, Ozempic is also commonly used as a weight management drug. Recent scientific studies have shown that taking Ozempic, particularly at higher doses, can cause gastroparesis.

July 29, 2026

Suboxone Tooth Decay Lawsuit Update

by Ronald V. Miller, Jr.

This page explains the Suboxone tooth decay lawsuits, the dental injuries linked to Suboxone film, and where the federal MDL stands in 2026.

The core claim in the Suboxone litigation is straightforward: plaintiffs allege that Indivior and related defendants knew, or should have known, that Suboxone film could cause severe dental damage, including tooth decay, enamel erosion, broken teeth, tooth loss, and expensive dental reconstruction. Plaintiffs contend the companies failed to warn patients and prescribing doctors until the FDA forced a dental warning in 2022.

Our firm is not accepting new Suboxone cases in 2026. This page is provided for litigation updates and general information for victims and their families

July 28, 2026

NEC Baby Formula Lawsuit

by Ronald V. Miller, Jr.

Our lawyers are handling Similac and Enfamil infant formula lawsuits for families whose premature babies suffered or died from necrotizing enterocolitis (NEC) after taking one of these formulas. Our law firm is reviewing NEC lawsuits in all 50 states.

Medical research links cow milk-based infant formulas such as Similac and Enfamil to a dangerous neonatal medical condition known as necrotizing enterocolitis. These newborn NEC formula lawsuits make many allegations. But at their core, they allege that the makers of these formulas knew of the risk of NEC and did nothing to warn families and give them a choice.

If your premature baby was diagnosed with NEC after being given Similac or Enfamil formula, you may be able to participate in a class action lawsuit against the formula companies and receive financial compensation for the harm that was done to your child.

July 28, 2026

Talc Powder Ovarian Cancer Lawsuit

by Ronald V. Miller, Jr.

Our lawyers are handling baby powder lawsuits in all 50 states in 2026. The talcum powder lawsuits against Johnson & Johnson have been ongoing for years. The lawsuits allege that prolonged use of talcum powder (or “talc”), the active ingredient in products such as Baby Powder and Shower to Shower, can cause ovarian cancer in some women.

This page provides an update on J&J talc powder litigation and discusses the settlement amounts in ovarian cancer lawsuits for victims.

Has the deadline passed for you to file a talcum powder lawsuit? Many who assume the statute of limitations has passed to sue Johnson & Johnson may be wrong. Call us today at 800-553-8082 or get a free and quick case review online.

July 27, 2026

Uber Sexual Assault Lawsuits

by Ronald V. Miller, Jr.

Uber is facing the largest wave of passenger sexual assault lawsuits in U.S. history. Survivors across the country allege that Uber drivers sexually assaulted them and that the company is legally responsible because it failed to screen drivers properly, ignored prior complaints, and did not implement basic safety measures.

These claims are now consolidated in In re: Uber Technologies Inc., Passenger Sexual Assault Litigation, MDL No. 3084, in the Northern District of California. The Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation centralized these lawsuits because they share common factual questions about Uber’s knowledge of sexual assault reports, driver screening, driver training, and safety measures. This is not technically a class action lawsuit. It is an MDL where the cases are consolidated for discovery, but each victim maintains her own claim.

As of June 2026, more than 3,000 plaintiffs have joined the federal MDL, with hundreds more cases still pending in the California coordinated proceeding. The first MDL trial began in January 2026, and the jury returned an $8.5 million verdict in early February.