Ethicon 26/1

Client Attorney Privileged/Attorney Work Product/At Request of Counsel

Online Sources

1. 2nd J&J Pelvic Mesh Trial Kicks Off In Philly

   Jan 25, 2016 | Law360

   By Matt Fair
   
   
   A second trial over alleged injuries caused by a Johnson & Johnson unit’s pelvic mesh got underway in Philadelphia on Monday, as a jury heard arguments that a New Jersey woman was left with significant, irreparable pain due to scarring from a defective implant.

Client Attorney Privileged/Attorney Work Product/At Request of Counsel

Online Sources

1. 2nd J&J Pelvic Mesh Trial Kicks Off In Philly

   Jan 25, 2016 | Law360

   By Matt Fair

   A second trial over alleged injuries caused by a Johnson & Johnson unit’s pelvic mesh got underway in Philadelphia on Monday, as a jury heard arguments that a New Jersey woman was left with significant, irreparable pain due to scarring from a defective implant.
   
   Kline & Specter PC attorney Shanin Specter told the jury that the Ethicon Inc. mesh left Sharon Carolino living with constant pain and discomfort, and that the condition interferes with her ability to have sex with her husband.
   
   “These problems have now gotten progressively worse,” Specter said. “They interfere with her daily life and with her very personal relationship with her husband, and unfortunately the mesh cannot be safely removed.”
   
   Carolino’s is one of nearly 180 cases pending in a mass tort program — and the second to go before a jury — in the Philadelphia County Court of Common Pleas.
   
   An initial case tried in December resulted in $12.5 million in total damages against Johnson & Johnson, with a jury agreeing that the Prolift pelvic mesh product was negligently designed and that a physician who implanted the product in plaintiff Patricia Hammons in 2009 received inadequate warnings about the risks.
   
   The award included $5.5 million in compensation plus another $7 million worth of punitive damages.
   
   While Carolino is also pursuing claims of defective design and inadequate warnings, her case centers around Ethicon’s so-called TVT, or transvaginal tape, product.
   
   Specter said Monday that Carolino received her TVT implant in 2005 to treat her stress urinary incontinence, which sees small amounts of urine involuntarily escape the body when sneezing or coughing.
   
   After complaining of a sharp feeling in her vagina two years later, however, her doctor discovered that the mesh had become exposed, requiring surgery to remove a portion of the implant. Three years after that, Specter said, she required another procedure after another patch of exposed mesh began causing her discomfort.
   
   In 2012, Specter said, she began feeling pulling sensations and more pain due to scarring from the mesh implant and from the prior surgeries she had undergone to correct previous complications.
   
   “When there is this vaginal scarring, the vagina simply can’t expand as it should,” Specter said. “This causes patients like Mrs. Carolino pain, including pain during intercourse. The defendants knew that this plastic mesh could erode through the wall of the vagina, requiring surgery to remove the eroded portion of the mesh, and that surgery to deal with erosions will cause further scarring, which in turn leads to more pain and permanent pain.”
   
   Laura Smith of Friday Eldredge & Clark LLP, representing Ethicon, told the jury Monday that medical records in the case suggested Carolino had not complained to any of her doctors about the alleged pain and discomfort she began experiencing in 2012.
   
   “Not one time did she ever complain of any of the problems Mr. Specter just told you she was claiming in this case,” Smith said.
   
   Smith said that risks associated with any mesh implant for treating incontinence were well-known by the medical community.
   
   “It is undisputed that this risk was well-known to Mrs. Carolino’s doctors and was warned about from the time of her surgery by Ethicon to all doctors,” Smith said.
   
   Smith added that numerous independent medical organizations had praised the company’s mesh implants, calling them the “gold standard for treating women with incontinence.”
   
   The case was argued for Carolino by Shanin Specter of Kline & Specter PC.
   
   The case was argued for Ethicon by Laura Smith of Friday Eldredge & Clark LLP.
   
   The case is Carolino et al. v. Ethicon Inc. et al., case number 130603470, in the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County, Pennsylvania.
   

   Return to headline | Return to top