Preview Newsletter
Ethicon Nov 13
-
J&J Can't Move Pelvic Mesh Cases Out Of Philly
Nov 12, 2015 | Law360
By Jody Godoy
A Philadelphia county judge has rejected Johnson & Johnson subsidiary Ethicon's argument that the court is an inconvenient place to try an upcoming load of cases against it over allegedly defective pelvic mesh products, leaving the first case to go to trial in early December. -
J&J Unit Settles Proposed Bellwether In Vaginal Mesh MDL
Nov 12, 2015 | Law360
By Joe Van Acker
A Johnson & Johnson unit accused of making defective pelvic mesh implants that cause painful infections has reached a settlement in a would-be bellwether trial that was scheduled to begin this month, according to a filing Wednesday in Georgia federal court. -
A Transvaginal Mesh Lawsuit Hits Two Manufacturers
Nov 12, 2015 | Top Class Actions
By Paul Tassin
A transvaginal mesh lawsuit filed by a Florida woman has joined the multidistrict litigation stemming over allegations that the pelvic mesh product caused severe health complications. Plaintiff Stacy P. says that in December 2013 she was implanted with two different transvaginal mesh products: Boston Scientific’s Advantage Transvaginal...
Client Attorney Privileged/Attorney Work Product/At Request of Counsel
Full Text of Stories Below
-
J&J Can't Move Pelvic Mesh Cases Out Of Philly
Nov 12, 2015 | Law360
By Jody Godoy
A Philadelphia county judge has rejected Johnson & Johnson subsidiary Ethicon's argument that the court is an inconvenient place to try an upcoming load of cases against it over allegedly defective pelvic mesh products, leaving the first case to go to trial in early December.
On Nov. 6, Judge Arnold New denied Ethicon Inc.'s motion to dismiss the more than 200 cases pending in the Philadelphia Court of Common Pleas. The judge did not offer reasons to accompany his decision, though attorneys for the patients who claim they were injured by pelvic mesh implants said the decision was not unexpected after the judge had previously denied a motion to dismiss by Boston Scientific, also a party to the cases.
Lee Balefsky, a lawyer for the patients, said the order allows the first trial in the mass tort action to go forward as planned on Dec. 7. In that suit, Patricia Hammons, an Indiana resident, is suing for injuries she says stem from her Ethicon Prolift pelvic mesh device implant. Hammons alleges the product contained design defects and the company failed to warn of its dangers.
Counsel for Ethicon did not immediately reply to requests for comment on Thursday.
The motion attempting to get the cases tossed because of the allegedly inconvenient location was not Ethicon's first bid to elude the claims.
At the end of March, a judge rejected the company’s arguments that plaintiffs in many of the mass tort cases had not claimed that their injuries had any specific ties to Pennsylvania sufficient to grant the court jurisdiction.
Despite the court’s rejection of that bid, the company filed a new motion in May aimed at having the cases moved on the basis of forum non conveniens.
Ethicon had argued that using Philadelphia as a base for cases involving plaintiffs from five different states was an inefficient way of managing the litigation. Instead, the company asked that the cases be moved either to the plaintiffs’ home states or to New Jersey, where Ethicon says it “made decisions concerning the design, manufacture and labeling of its pelvic mesh devices.”
The patients argued back in a reply brief the same month that Philadelphia was no more inconvenient a venue for the cases — the first seven slated for trial out of the more than 200 that are pending as part of a mass tort program in the court — than other options including federal multidistrict litigation in West Virginia and similar consolidated proceedings in New Jersey state court.
They also argued that moving the cases to other jurisdictions would delay adjudication of their claims. The plaintiffs pointed out that there were some 26,000 claims pending against Ethicon in the MDL and nearly 8,000 in the consolidated litigation in New Jersey.
The plaintiffs are represented by Thomas Kline, Lee Balefsky and Michelle Tiger of Kline & Specter PC.
J&J is represented by Andrew Reeve, Kenneth Murphy and Melissa Graff of Drinker Biddle & Reath LLP.
The case is In Re: Pelvic Mesh Litigation, case number 140200829, in the Philadelphia County Court of Common Pleas. -
J&J Unit Settles Proposed Bellwether In Vaginal Mesh MDL
Nov 12, 2015 | Law360
By Joe Van Acker
A Johnson & Johnson unit accused of making defective pelvic mesh implants that cause painful infections has reached a settlement in a would-be bellwether trial that was scheduled to begin this month, according to a filing Wednesday in Georgia federal court.
Mentor Corp. reached a deal with Beryl Cole and Roger Gupton, whose complaint regarding the company’s ObTape sling was among six designated as bellwethers by U.S. District Judge Clay D. Land earlier this year and was slated for a two-week jury trial starting Nov. 30.
The terms of the agreement were not disclosed.
The couple’s complaint was one of hundreds against Mentor that were consolidated in multidistrict litigation. After being implanted with the ObTape device in 2004, Cole claimed in 2011 that, like many other recipients, she suffered infections, abscesses and scarring, requiring multiple surgeries.
One day before the U.S. Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation consolidated the ObTape suits, the company settled 111 of them in one fell swoop, agreeing to establish a trust to manage and distribute funds agreed upon in 2014.
Mentor had settled another proposed bellwether case in July 2013 shortly before trial.
Following Wednesday’s settlement, just two of the proposed bellwether trials against Mentor remain in play. Judge Land previously granted the company’s motions for summary judgment in one case in August and two more in October.
Judge Land found that the patients in those three suits all knew, or should have known, that their medical problems were linked to the ObTape sling years before they sued, putting their claims beyond the statute of limitations.
Mentor had argued that claims by an Idaho ObTape recipient were similarly barred, but Judge Land was unpersuaded in that case, ruling last month that it wasn't clear that the woman's implant caused a complication requiring surgery in 2005, when Mentor had said the clock should have begun to run on her claims.
Mentor faces claims of negligence, fraudulent concealment, breaches of express and implied warranties and failure to warn. In one of the potential bellwether cases, Preston v. Mentor, the judge initially threw out Rosa Preston’s fraudulent concealment claim but vacated that order in September.
After initially finding that Preston failed to provide any evidence that she or her doctors relied on false statements or omissions in materials produced by Mentor, the judge determined that a genuine factual dispute remains.
Representatives for Mentor did not respond to requests for comment Thursday. Attorneys for the couple declined to comment.
The couple are represented by Derek H. Potts, Patricia L. Campbell and Andrew A. Woellner of The Potts Law Firm and David M. Zevan and Kevin J. Davidson of Zevan & Davidson Law Firm LLC.
Mentor is represented by Dustin Bradley Rawlin, Rebecca Winder Gutierrez and John Q. Lewis of Tucker Ellis LLP.
The case is Cole et al. v. Mentor Worldwide LLC, case number 4:11-cv-05073, in the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Georgia.
The MDL is In Re: Mentor Corp. Obtape Transobturator Sling Products Liability Litigation, case number 4:08-md-02004, in the same venue. -
A Transvaginal Mesh Lawsuit Hits Two Manufacturers
Nov 12, 2015 | Top Class Actions
By Paul Tassin
A transvaginal mesh lawsuit filed by a Florida woman has joined the multidistrict litigation stemming over allegations that the pelvic mesh product caused severe health complications.
Plaintiff Stacy P. says that in December 2013 she was implanted with two different transvaginal mesh products: Boston Scientific’s Advantage Transvaginal Mid-Urethral Sling System, and a Gynecare TVT Abbrevo Continence System made by Ethicon Inc.
She is now suing manufacturers Boston Scientific, Ethicon, and Ethicon’s parent company Johnson & Johnson over complications associated with those two devices.
This transvaginal mesh lawsuit joins a total of over 60,000 other similar claims in six different multidistrict litigations, all overseen by Judge Joseph R. Goodwin in a West Virginia federal court. Transvaginal Mesh Complications
Women hoping to treat pelvic organ prolapse or stress urinary incontinence are implanted with a transvaginal mesh, sling, tape, and other similar products.
In pelvic organ prolapse, weakened pelvic muscles allow organs to droop into the vagina; a transvaginal mesh can be used to hold the organs in their proper place. In stress urinary incontinence, a transvaginal mesh can be used to support the urethra when pelvic muscles fail.
Use of implanted vaginal mesh to control these conditions first began in the 1970s as an adaptation of surgical techniques used to correct abdominal hernias. In 1996, the first transvaginal mesh device made specifically for these gynecological conditions received FDA approval. Several other similar devices were also approved over the next few years.
However, thousands of recipients of transvaginal mesh implants have reported a variety of related complications. Some implantations have resulted in erosion of the surrounding tissues and perforation of organs. More serious complications have required surgical revision. Transvaginal Lawsuits
In the Boston Scientific multidistrict litigation that Stacy is joining, plaintiffs allege that certain aspects of the Boston Scientific products make them defective. Plaintiffs claim that the monofilament polypropylene used in the Boston Scientific products is not inert but in fact promotes a negative immune response that leads to inflammation of the pelvic tissue in many recipients.
Plaintiffs also allege that transvaginal mesh products are prone to contraction inside the body. They cite a 2011 Safety Communication issued by the FDA, noting that according to both scientific literature and adverse event reports to the FDA, some instances of mesh contraction had resulted in “vaginal shortening, vaginal tightening and vaginal pain.”
Despite these alleged flaws, plaintiffs say the defendants continued to market transvaginal mesh products as safe and effective and preferable to alternative procedures. They allege the defendants understated the risks of transvaginal mesh complications and underreported instances of mesh failure. They also allege that the defendants failed to perform adequate clinical studies.
Plaintiffs in the multidistrict litigations also include spouses of transvaginal mesh recipients bringing claims for loss of consortium. Loss of consortium is a type of claim that the spouse of a victim can bring to seek compensation for the effect of the wrongful act on the marital relationship.
The Transvaginal Mesh Lawsuit is Case No. 2:15-CV-12988 and MDL No. 2326 in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of West Virginia.
Client Attorney Privileged/Attorney Work Product/At Request of Counsel
Full Text of Stories Below
Add recipients
Suggested