ethicon 3/10

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

Online Sources

1. Mullins v. J&J Pelvic Mesh Case of 37 Plaintiffs to be Rescheduled

   Mar 10, 2016 | Mesh Medical Device News Desk

   By Jane Akre
   
   
   Mullins, et al. v. Ethicon, Inc. et al. (Case No. 2:12-cv-02952) was the first “Wave” case that would have heard 37 plaintiffs in one trial before judge Joseph Goodwin, who is heading the multidistrict litigation.

Full Text of Stories Below

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

Online Sources

1. Mullins v. J&J Pelvic Mesh Case of 37 Plaintiffs to be Rescheduled

   Mar 10, 2016 | Mesh Medical Device News Desk

   By Jane Akre

   Mullins, et al. v. Ethicon, Inc. et al. (Case No. 2:12-cv-02952) was the first “Wave” case that would have heard 37 plaintiffs in one trial before judge Joseph Goodwin, who is heading the multidistrict litigation.

   They were consolidated into one trial because of their similarities with a goal of moving cases through the court more swiftly.

   All of the women in Mullins had been implanted with Johnson & Johnson’s TVT (transvaginal tape) and all were from West Virginia. Even though they had been implanted by different doctors, their injuries from defendant, Ethicon/ J&J pelvic mesh offered enough similarities to hear them in one case.

   A “wave” of plaintiffs clusters them because of similarities in an attempt to try a mass of cases in a crowded venue.

   The multidistrict litigation in federal court in West Virginia now has  in excess of 87,000 cases, more than any other MDL ever assembled.

   MAM (Mesh Awareness Movement) had planned a rally outside the Byrd federal courthouse during some or all of the trial.

   Those plans are on standby.

   Plaintiffs Must Agree to Defense  Medical Exams 

   What is forthcoming about the Mullins case is seen in PTO (Pretrial order) # 214. All plaintiffs must be subjected to medical exams by doctors for the defense.

   PTO # 214- Ethicon Wave One cases and Defense Medical Exams or DME.   On February 18, 2016, Magistrate Judge Cheryl Eifert granted in part and denied in part a Plaintiffs’ Motion to define the scope of the DME (defense medical exams).

   What was decided is that Defense must pay for travel and the hotel expenses of Plaintiffs. Making doctor appointments on the weekend to make it more convenient for a work schedule was denied.

   Plaintiffs cannot specify they are examined ONLY by a female doctor.  Plaintiffs’ motion that they would not have to travel out of town for the exam was denied.

   The doctor must be qualified and that proof must be provided to the plaintiffs.   Invasive testing of the plaintiff is not required unless she agrees and receives informed consent. Otherwise she must submit to a pelvic exam, external ultrasound, lab work, x rays, and a urodynamic testing.

   Plainiffs’ request the pelvic floor ultrasound be performed only by a highly specialized physician with highly specialized equipment and only after a discussion with plaintiffs’ counsel was denied.  As long as the technician is qualified and certified, the testing should be acceptable, wrote the judge.

   Plaintiffs request that the examination be audio-recorded was denied.

   Ethicon attorney, Christy Jones, had motioned (Mullins Doc #256 Defense)  that the deposition document request by Plaintiffs for defense medical expert, Kimberly Kenton, MD,  was too broad and burdensome.

   Dr. Kenton was scheduled to be deposed February 18, 2016. #

   Return to headline | Return to top

Full Text of Stories Below