Preview Newsletter
Ethicon Media Monitoring 3/10/2017
-
Appeals court revives vaginal sling cases against J&J unit
Mar 9, 2017 | Reuters
By Barbara Grzincic
A federal appeals court on Thursday revived claims by 12 Minnesota women against Johnson & Johnson’s Mentor Worldwide unit, the former maker of the ObTape transvaginal sling, reversing a lower-court ruling that their lawsuits were filed too late. -
The Lawsuits Keep Coming for Johnson & Johnson
Mar 9, 2017 | Bloomberg Businessweek
By Margaret Cronin Fisk and Jef Feeley
... Some of the trials will serve as test cases for what the company might have to pay. In December, J&J lost an appeal to throw out an $11.1 million award to a South Dakota woman who sued over the pain caused by the company’s vaginal mesh implant, used to strengthen weak pelvic muscles. -
Direct Filing of Hernia Mesh Lawsuits Now Permitted in Atrium C-Qur Litigation
Mar 9, 2017 | RX Injury Help
By Sandy Liebhard
... While the first Physiomesh trial is scheduled to get underway next January in the U.S. District Court, Southern District of Illinois, no motions have yet been filed seeking centralization of these claims.
Client Attorney Privileged/Attorney Work Product/At Request of Counsel
Online Sources
-
Appeals court revives vaginal sling cases against J&J unit
Mar 9, 2017 | Reuters
By Barbara Grzincic
A federal appeals court on Thursday revived claims by 12 Minnesota women against Johnson & Johnson’s Mentor Worldwide unit, the former maker of the ObTape transvaginal sling, reversing a lower-court ruling that their lawsuits were filed too late.
The 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals said the lower court erred in finding the actions untimely simply because they were filed more than six years after the women had their slings removed. There was no evidence to show that the women knew that ObTape was the cause of their ailments as required under Minnesota law to start the statute of limitations running, the appeals court held.
To read the full story on WestlawNext Practitioner Insights, click here: bit.ly/2nkfaAe
Access to full text unavailable – subscription required. For full story: http://www.reuters.com/article/jj-sling-idUSL2N1GM2DK
-
The Lawsuits Keep Coming for Johnson & Johnson
Mar 9, 2017 | Bloomberg Businessweek
By Margaret Cronin Fisk and Jef Feeley
Johnson & Johnson was hit with six of the seven largest product-defect verdicts of 2016, and 2017 could also wind up costing the company hundreds of millions of dollars, if not more.
The company is facing at least 17 trials in state and federal courts this year in cases blaming five J&J products for injuries and death. They follow trial losses on some of those products, including a $1 billion verdict against the company in December over hip implants and an earlier $72 million verdict over claims its talcum powder causes ovarian cancer.
While litigation is routine for drugmakers, including Johnson & Johnson — the total number of pending claims against the company is 100,000 and growing — the pileup of bad verdicts is rare. With $42 billion of cash on hand, analysts aren’t itching to change their buy ratings, says Jason McGorman, an analyst with Bloomberg Intelligence, but the mushrooming caseload combined with product recalls and little innovation have affected growth and earnings. “I think that has been part of what has weighed on J&J’s shares the past few years,” McGorman says. Jeff Jonas, a portfolio manager at Gabelli Funds LLC, says the verdicts have also caused some reputational damage.
J&J disputes the claims in the suits and is fighting them, says spokeswoman Samantha Gilham. The coming cases include the first trials, starting in April, about claims that blood thinner Xarelto causes uncontrolled bleeding. In Philadelphia state court, at least three trials are set over allegations that the antipsychotic drug Risperdal causes boys to develop female breasts.
Two hip-implant verdicts last year, the aforementioned $1 billion suit and another for $500 million, were reduced by judges after trial. J&J is appealing those verdicts as well as the others of 2016. “We believe we have strong grounds for reversal,” Gilham says.
The real danger isn’t the losses or even the risk of this year’s trials, legal experts say. Rather, it’s that more bad verdicts could encourage others to file, raising the costs of fighting and settling.
Some of the trials will serve as test cases for what the company might have to pay. In December, J&J lost an appeal to throw out an $11.1 million award to a South Dakota woman who sued over the pain caused by the company’s vaginal mesh implant, used to strengthen weak pelvic muscles. Almost 55,000 claims over the mesh are pending in courts across the U.S. New cases over the various products at issue in all the trials are continually being filed, J&J said in a securities filing on Feb. 27.
Winning could lead plaintiffs to drop their cases and discourage new filings, while a continued losing streak would put J&J at risk for even bigger losses. “The initial strategy should always be to litigate vigorously, not give an inch or settle prematurely,” says Anthony Sabino, a law professor at St. John’s University.
—With Joel Rosenblatt
The bottom line: Snowballing product-defect cases could lead to more big verdicts and encourage additional suits against J&J in 2017
https://bol.bna.com/the-lawsuits-keep-coming-for-johnson-johnson/
-
Direct Filing of Hernia Mesh Lawsuits Now Permitted in Atrium C-Qur Litigation
Mar 9, 2017 | RX Injury Help
By Sandy Liebhard
Hernia mesh lawsuits involving Atrium Medical Corp.’s C-Qur patch are moving forward in the U.S. District Court, District of New Hampshire. According to a Case Management Order dated February 10, 2017, the Court is now permitting plaintiffs to file directly in the multidistrict litigation.
Two dozen lawsuits involving the Atrium C-Qur patch were pending in the federal multidistrict litigation as of February 17, 2017. This past December, the U.S. Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation agreed to centralize all federally-filed claims over the product in the District of New Hampshire in order to allow the cases to undergo coordinated pretrial proceedings. According to the February 10th Order, direct filing of cases in the proceeding is intended to promote judicial efficiency and eliminate delays associated with the transfer of lawsuits from other federal jurisdictions.
Atrium C-Qur mesh is indicated for permanent abdominal wall reinforcement in hernia surgeries. The manufacturer of the device claims that its Omega-3 barrier coating reduces the risk of adhesions (scar tissue) between the hernia mesh and the intestines. Atrium Medical also promises that this feature allows for better fixation of the hernia patch to the abdominal wall. However, plaintiffs claim that the C-Qur mesh design causes an inflammatory response that promotes the formation of bowel adhesions, impedes proper abdominal wall fixation, and causes additional severe complications.
Ethicon Hernia Mesh Lawsuits
Atrium Medical Corp. is just one hernia patch manufacturer facing lawsuits over an allegedly defective product. A number of cases have recently been filed in courts around the country on behalf of individuals who claim to have experienced serious complications due to failure of Ethicon, Inc.’s Physiomesh Flexible Composite Mesh Patch. While the first Physiomesh trial is scheduled to get underway next January in the U.S. District Court, Southern District of Illinois, no motions have yet been filed seeking centralization of these claims.
Ethicon’s Physiomesh Flexible Composite Mesh Patch was withdrawn from the worldwide market earlier last year. Ethicon decided to pull the hernia patch after data from two European registries indicated that it was associated with unexpectedly high rates of recurrence and revision when used in laparoscopic ventral hernia repair. Ethicon was not able to determine the reason for the higher rates, which it said may be due to product factors, as well as operative and patient characteristic.
Plaintiffs who have filed hernia mesh lawsuits involving the Physiomesh product claim that Ethicon and other defendants knew or should have known that the device posed a foreseeable and unreasonable risk of harm to patients. Yet they continued to market the hernia patch in the U.S. without providing adequate warnings or information about its risks to the public and medical community.
http://www.rxinjuryhelp.com/news/2017/03/09/direct-filing-of-hernia-mesh-lawsuits-now-permitted-in-atrium-c-qur-litigation/
Client Attorney Privileged/Attorney Work Product/At Request of Counsel
Online Sources
Add recipients
Suggested