Preview Newsletter
Ethicon Media Monitoring 3/29/2017
-
Why Johnson & Johnson Would Like to Forget 2016: QuickTake Q&A
Mar 29, 2017 | Bloomberg
By Margaret Cronin Fisk and Jef Feeley
Johnson & Johnson had a year for the record books -- it lost six of 2016’s seven largest jury verdicts in the U.S. over product defect claims. -
J&J Settles Third Round of Pelvic Mesh Cases
Mar 28, 2017 | Mesh Medical Device Newsdesk
J&J (Johnson & Johnson) has been the last company to come to the settlement table, but an unopposed motion announces a third settlement for an unknown number of pelvic mesh women. -
Canadian patients join class-action suit over recalled hernia mesh
Mar 28, 2017 | CTV News
By Angela Mulholland
Some Canadian hernia surgery patients have launched a class-action lawsuit against the maker of a now-recalled surgical mesh, claiming they weren't warned of its dangers. -
Hunter New England Health Service caught up in US mesh research case
Mar 29, 2017 | Newcastle Herald
By Joanne McCarthy
AN American medical device company used research it claimed was conducted at Hunter New England Health Service to promote high risk pig intestine pelvic mesh in America, at least four years before women complained of serious mesh complications. -
Woman speaks out over devastating impact of mesh surgery
Mar 28, 2017 | Concord Register
Jan Wise is a woman “rotting from the inside” after being implanted with a high-risk pig-intestine pelvic mesh device in 2012 by a doctor with a history of botched surgery involving women in the US. -
Warning, delicate subject ahead (not for children)
Mar 28, 2017 | WND
By Patty Ann Malley
Have you ever caught a glimpse of those trans-vaginal mesh/bladder sling lawsuits advertised on late night television? Watch the video below to get the lowdown.
Client Attorney Privileged/Attorney Work Product/At Request of Counsel
Online Sources
-
Why Johnson & Johnson Would Like to Forget 2016: QuickTake Q&A
Mar 29, 2017 | Bloomberg
By Margaret Cronin Fisk and Jef Feeley
Johnson & Johnson had a year for the record books -- it lost six of 2016’s seven largest jury verdicts in the U.S. over product defect claims. This year may be no better. The company is facing at least 17 trials in state and federal courts in the U.S. over hip implants, talcum powder, pelvic mesh, an anti-psychotic drug and a blood thinner. And beyond these trials, there are tens of thousands more potential claims over those five products.
1. Just how bad was 2016 for J&J in court?
Pretty bad. Companies rarely get hit with more than two or three product defect verdicts above $20 million in any given year. J&J lost six of more than $50 million. The company was hit with two hip implant verdicts: one for $1 billion (the seventh-largest product-defect award in U.S. history) and another for $500 million. The company lost all three talc cases that went to trial in 2016, for verdicts of $72 million, $70 million and $55 million, each by St. Louis juries. A Philadelphia jury in July awarded the largest-ever Risperdal verdict -- $70 million to a Tennessee teenager -- that dwarfed the previous $2.5 million record for such claims.
J&J’s 2016 Trial Losses
Six of the seven largest product-defect verdicts in the U.S. were against J&J:· Hip implant, Dallas: for $1 billion
· Hip implant, Dallas: $502 million
· Talc, St. Louis: $72 million
· Risperdal, Philadelphia: $70 million
· Talc, St. Louis: $70 million
· Talc, St. Louis: $55 million
(The third-biggest product liability verdict of 2016 was against Audi, $124 million in Texas over a seat-back failure.)
2. What was wrong with J&J’s products?
Women with ovarian cancer blame J&J’s baby powder and Shower to Shower talc products for their illnesses, alleging J&J has withheld information on a link between talcum powder and cancer. (J&J sold its Shower to Shower brand in 2012.) The Risperdal suits are being brought by boys and young men who said they developed female breasts after taking the anti-psychotic drug. The plaintiffs in the hip implant cases claim the company’s Pinnacle products fail, causing pain and requiring replacement surgeries. The company also has thousands of claims over Xarelto, alleging the blood thinner can cause uncontrolled bleeding, and pelvic mesh inserts, claiming the implants erode.
3. How has J&J responded to the claims?
The company’s defenses vary. Ultimately, it denies liability for injuries. In talc, for instance, J&J says there’s no scientific evidence pointing to a link between mineral in talcum powder and ovarian cancer. With Risperdal and other drugs, J&J contends that patients and doctors were sufficiently warned about possible side effects.4. So how many lawsuits are there?
J&J said in its most recent U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission filings that it’s facing more than 100,000 claims over these five products, and the numbers are continually rising. That includes almost 55,000 over mesh and more than 18,000 Risperdal claims. In the past year, claims over Xarelto have more than tripled, from 5,000 to 16,900. Those numbers are likely to grow, particularly with plaintiffs’ lawyers nationwide advertising for more clients. The pattern is typical for product-defect litigation -- unless judges toss out claims or a defendant starts winning at trial, it’s a feeding frenzy.5. Why doesn’t J&J just settle?
J&J’s tactics are tried and true for a company facing mass litigation: the longer and harder it fights, the better the chance of whittling down the claims or discouraging other plaintiffs. While big verdicts grab the headlines in product-defect cases, defendants often get claims thrown out before they reach a jury or win at trial, usually with less fanfare. While J&J lost three talc cases at trial in 2016, it won the first jury verdict this year. And J&J won dismissal last year of some talc claims filed in New Jersey, when the judge agreed that scientific proof was lacking. Also, what a jury decides isn’t written in stone. Judges and appeals courts may reduce awards or reverse verdicts. That $1 billion implant verdict has already been cutto $500 million. What happens in these initial trials, including appeals, will affect the ultimate cost, if any, for settlements. That said, at least six of this year’s trials are set in state court in the City of St. Louis, a venue called a “judicial hellhole’’ by the American Tort Reform Association because of its plaintiff-friendly reputation.6. How much have the lawsuits cost the company?
J&J’s stock dipped when a couple of the verdicts hit in 2016 but generally hasn’t suffered. Analysts believe the litigation risk is baked into the price, though some consider the lawsuits a drag on the stock. The ultimate cost of settlements or judgments isn’t known and may not be known for years. But fighting so many lawsuits on so many different products at the same time is expensive, counting lawyers’ fees, payments for experts and other trial and court costs. Companies typically don’t reveal the price tags for fighting specific claims and J&J is no different. But the longer the cases drag on, if juries keep up 2016’s pace, expect the company to be earmarking billions of dollars for fighting claims over the next few years.
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2017-03-28/why-johnson-johnson-would-like-to-forget-2016-quicktake-q-a
-
J&J Settles Third Round of Pelvic Mesh Cases
Mar 28, 2017 | Mesh Medical Device Newsdesk
Mesh Medical Device News Desk, March 28, 2017 ~ J&J (Johnson & Johnson) has been the last company to come to the settlement table, but an unopposed motion announces a third settlement for an unknown number of pelvic mesh women.
We don’t know how many women are involved or the dollar amount, but J&J has agreed to settle an unknown number of pelvic mesh cases.
According to Pretrial Order #250, filed in multidistrict litigation in Charleston, WV, Fleming, Nolen & Jez are the plaintiffs’ firm that has reached the Qualified Settlement Fund with Ethicon, a division of Johnson & Johnson.
The settlement has reportedly been in the works for some time, say sources. It occurred as the Susan Smith case (here) was being prepared for trial in Bergen County, New Jersey before Judge Rochelle Hartz.
Smith v. Ethicon trial was initially set for November 2016 then moved to January of this year.
Filed Monday, March 27, PTO#250 is a Motion establishing the Qualified Settlement Fund. The unopposed motion is granted by Judge Joseph Goodwin, overseeing multidistrict litigation in his Charleston, WV court.
Ethicon, a subsidiary of Johnson & Johnson has consistently had the largest number of product liability cases filed in this federal court. As of today, there are 38,035 cases filed with 5,547 cases closed. That number represents the lowest number of closed cases proportionately.
As of today there are 102,133 cases filed against seven manufacturers in this MDL where nationwide cases have been consolidated.
Since November first, 4,840 additional product liability cases, naming all seven manufacturers,have been filed in Charleston, WV court.
Scott Freeman of The Settlement Alliance of Houston is appointed as the fund administrator. The settlement will be deposited in J.P. Morgan Chase Bank which will serve as the Esdrow Agent. The Master Settlement Agreement must also pay into the MDL No. 2327 Fund.
The Settlement Alliance offers Structured Settlement Trusts to provide tax-free payments.
The Houston-based Nolan law firm had several hundred transvaginal mesh cases. It is unclear how many are included in this settlement. George Nolan has a reputation of taking care of his clients and making sure they receive a just amount, says an unnamed source.
This would be the third settlement offer by J&J, which has been he firm least likely to come to the settlement table. In January, J&J made an offer to settle up to 3,000 lawsuits for $120 million to resolve up to 3,000 transvaginal mesh cases.
Last September, J&J offered settlements to an undisclosed number of clients of Blasingame, Burch, Garrard & Ashley. See the Mesh News Desk story here. ###
http://www.meshmedicaldevicenewsdesk.com/jj-settles-third-round-pelvic-mesh-cases/
-
Canadian patients join class-action suit over recalled hernia mesh
Mar 28, 2017 | CTV News
By Angela Mulholland
Some Canadian hernia surgery patients have launched a class-action lawsuit against the maker of a now-recalled surgical mesh, claiming they weren't warned of its dangers.
Patients are speaking out about a surgical device called Physiomesh Flexible Composite Mesh, which was used in Canada up until last year, when it was recalled and pulled from the market over concerns about higher rates of complications.
The mesh is made by Ethicon, a subsidiary of Johnson & Johnson. It became available on the Canadian market in September, 2010.
In June 2016, Health Canada issued a recall for Physiomesh after the manufacturers learned that the recurrence and reoperation rates after hernia repair using the mesh were higher than the average rates of other meshes
Ethicon said, at the time of the recall, the higher rates were “a multifactorial issue” including possible product characteristics and patient factors, but the company hadn’t been able “to fully characterize these factors.”
Now, a group of people who had the mesh surgically implanted are speaking out, saying they believe their pain and health problems are linked to the product.
According to the class action’s statement of claim, the plaintiffs allege that there is a “design defect” in the Physiomesh that causes it to contract, tear, or migrate, leading to such injuries as perforations, abscess and adhesion formations, infections, and the need for further surgery.
One of the complainants who filed the class-action is 34-year-old Colleen Copland. Doctors used the plastic mesh on a hole in her abdomen following routine hernia surgery. Copland has since learned her mesh “stretched out,” causing her hernia to recur and become more painful than ever.
"The pain is always there," Copland told CTV News. "It feels like my insides are going to explode."
She added: "If I cough or sneeze I have to hold my stomach. It is a horrible pain, to be honest."
Not long after Copland's surgery in February 2016, she learned the mesh was recalled and taken off the market.
Jaqueline Deschenes of Laval, Que. also suffered ongoing pain after her hernia surgery, during which she also received the mesh implant. She told CTV News, in French, that a surgeon told her the product was not good and they weren't using it anymore.
Deschenes had the mesh removed in January 2015. But the pain has never left. She said she feels something "like a mass" inside her all the time.
Deschenes has also joined a class-action lawsuit against Johnson & Johnson, claiming she wasn't warned of the dangers.
"It is our understanding that there are more people out there and there's probably more people that are experiencing these kinds of side effects," says lawyer Jill McCartney, who is representing plaintiffs.
She added there are likely others who have had their hernias "come back with a greater severity" and likely are experiencing pain and discomfort.
In a statement, the Johnson & Johnson unit that produced the mesh wrote: "At Ethicon, our first priority is to our customers and their patients, and that includes the safe and effective use of our products. Ethicon will defend itself against lawsuits concerning the use of our hernia mesh products."
As many as 30,000 Canadians may have received this brand of mesh.
Dr. John Morrison, a Sarnia, Ont.-based surgeon who specializes in mesh removal said what happens with recalled hernia mesh after it's been implanted in patients depends on the patient's symptoms.
"Unfortunately, there is not a whole lot to do for patients that have it, and my advice for patients is to leave it alone and if they have any problems with it, then it will have to be dealt with at that time," Morrison said in an interview with CTV News.
Copland said she wonders how the mesh was approved for use in the first place and is now awaiting surgery to remove it at the Shouldice Hernia Centre, which specializes in usually mesh-free hernia repairs.
"I think there should be more testing on these products and not so quick to get them onto the market if they're not ready," he said. Copland is currently awaiting a second surgery to remove the mesh.
There have been other problems with hernia mesh. A class action lawsuit was launched over the Kugel mesh, which allegedly caused complications, including bowel perforations.
With a report by CTV News medical specialist Avis Favaro and producer Elizabeth St. Phillip
http://www.ctvnews.ca/health/canadian-patients-join-class-action-suit-over-recalled-hernia-mesh-1.3345055
-
Hunter New England Health Service caught up in US mesh research case
Mar 29, 2017 | Newcastle Herald
By Joanne McCarthy
AN American medical device company used research it claimed was conducted at Hunter New England Health Service to promote high risk pig intestine pelvic mesh in America, at least four years before women complained of serious mesh complications.
Hunter New England Health Service is investigating how Cook Medical issued media releases in September, 2006 citing a “94 per cent success rate” from alleged research at the health service involving Cook’s Surgisis prolapse mesh for women, by gynaecologist Dr Richard Reid, who went on to be an associate professor at Newcastle University.
The health service had no knowledge or record of the research, an alleged 12-month trial involving 98 women, ethics approvals, patient consents or Cook Medical’s media releases until contacted by the Newcastle Herald.
A Hunter New England Health spokesperson said Dr Reid applied to the Hunter New England Human Research Ethics Committee in October, 2007 – more than a year after the Cook medical release - for a trial involving “a new prolapse treatment”, but the application “did not proceed… and was not approved”.
“Hunter New England Health was not aware that Dr Reid’s work has been cited in promotional material for the product. To participate in any Hunter New England Health-approved trial, informed patient consent must be provided which is based on documentation approved by the Hunter New England Human Research Ethics Committee,” the spokesperson said.
In the 2006 media releases Cook Medical said “Research conducted by Dr Richard Reid at the Hunter New England Health Service in Australia, shows that at 12 months following the repair surgery, patients experienced a statistically significant reduction in all pre-existent symptoms”.
Dr Reid applied to the Hunter New England Human Research Ethics Committee in October, 2007 for a trial involving a new prolapse treatment, but the application did not proceed… and was not approved.- Hunter New England Health Service
It said Dr Reid “conducted three studies on a total of 98 women following surgery for three forms of pelvic organ prolapse”. Findings included that “in 94 per cent of cases, the prolapse operations were a success at one year follow-up”.
It quoted Dr Reid saying: “Based on anatomic and functional outcomes measures, 94.6 per cent of the patients studied experienced outright or qualified success. My research also found that using Surgisis shortened and simplified what is traditionally a difficult operation.”
Cook Medical did not respond to Herald questions. Dr Reid did not respond to Herald questions on Monday.
A research paper about Surgisis mesh by Dr Reid, and identifying “Hunter New England Health Service, NSW, Australia”, appeared in the medical journal Pelviperineology in March, 2007.
In his conflict of interest declaration Dr Reid noted that he was “supervising investigator for a global multicentre, randomized clinical trial” comparing Cook’s Surgisis mesh with “suture only” pelvic surgery.
“Beyond this research funding from Cook Incorporated, I have no commercial or employment ties to any company,” the declaration said.
Cook Medical’s website from 2007 carried three papers by Dr Reid linked to his use of Cook’s Surgisis pelvic mesh, without identifying institutions. A 2011 paper written by Dr Reid about Surgisis was one of a number of papers by doctors used by Cook in 2015 in an unsuccessful attempt to stop the American Food and Drug Administration from reclassifying Cook’s pig intestine mesh to high risk.
In an editorial in June, 2015 Pelviperineology was described as the “home journal” of women’s pelvic floor specialists who supported the non-mainstream “integral theory system” of women’s pelvic repair, developed by Dr Reid’s Australian colleague, Dr Peter Petros.
The editorial openly criticised other medical journals “which place great store on the peer review system”, and said it published research “rejected by other pelvic floor journals”.
Dr Petros and Dr Reid have both held senior editorial positions on the journal. Both men are the subject of recent Health Care Complaints Commission investigations after serious complaints linked to pelvic mesh surgery.
Hunter New England Health Service is writing to Pelviperineology to request its name be removed from any published works, and to advise the journal it had not approved any such research.
It has also advised the NSW Health office of health and medical research. In its statement the health service said it routinely advised the National Health and Medical Research Council of unapproved research as part of its annual reporting schedule.
Cook Medical’s 2006 statement about the alleged Hunter New England Health Service research was released nearly two years before the first Cook high risk pig intestine Surgisis mesh for prolapse surgery was cleared for use by Australia’s drug and medical device regulator, the Therapeutic Goods Administration, in June, 2008.
A Cook Surgisis mesh for incontinence was cleared for use in Australia in April, 2005, but withdrawn by the manufacturer and cancelled by 2009. Cook also produces a range of mesh hernia repair devices.
In an interview last week with the Herald Dr Reid said he “went to the (United) States a couple of times and helped them (Cook Medical) design the shapes” of transvaginal meshes (where meshes to treat women dealing with complications after childbirth are implanted via the vagina rather than the abdomen).
Asked if he had completed any research for Cook, Dr Reid replied: “No, I don’t think so.”
He said he made some presentations at international urogynaecological conferences citing 94 per cent success rates using Surgisis, and had “discussions” with Cook about his results, but said “I have no idea what they’re relying on” to refer to research by him at Hunter New England Health Service.
Dr Reid said he had not carried out any surgery, either public or private, in Newcastle.
I have no idea what they're relying on.- Dr Richard Reid about Cook Medical's media release
More than 600 American women have initiated legal action against Cook Medical for “pelvic repair system products”. Nearly 500 cases remained outstanding in court lists obtained by the Herald in February.
A Central Coast woman who launched legal action against Dr Reid in 2014, alleging serious complications after she was implanted with Surgisis mesh, reached a settlement with Dr Reid’s insurer in December. At least five other women have launched legal action against Dr Reid after alleging serious complications relating to pelvic mesh.
Dr Petros’s mesh delivery device based on the “integral theory”, which was developed and registered in America by a Tyco Healthcare subsidiary as the IVS Tunneller in 2001, became the first transvaginal mesh delivery system cleared in America to correct pelvic organ prolapse in women.
The IVS Tunneller became the “predicate case” relied on by some of the world’s biggest drug companies to have transvaginal mesh kits “cleared” for sale in America over the following decade to treat prolapse, without independent clinical evidence of safety.
This was despite the IVS Tunneller being developed for incontinenece, and not prolapse. The 2001 clearance has subsequently been heavily criticised.
More than 100,000 American women have registered for legal action against transvaginal mesh manufacturers in America, and 750 women have registered for class actions in Australia against two American mesh manufacturers.
In February Victorian Senator Derryn Hinch successfully argued for a Senate inquiry into how transvaginal mesh was cleared for use in Australia, and the impacts on Australian women. He compared the transvaginal mesh scandal with the Thalidomide drug scandal in the 1960s.
http://www.theherald.com.au/story/4551708/a-hunter-health-services-link-to-high-risk-pig-intestine-pelvic-mesh/#slide=1
-
Woman speaks out over devastating impact of mesh surgery
Mar 28, 2017 | Concord Register
Jan Wise is a woman “rotting from the inside” after being implanted with a high-risk pig-intestine pelvic mesh device in 2012 by a doctor with a history of botched surgery involving women in the US.
The doctor – former Newcastle University associate professor Richard Reid – is the subject of complaints being prosecuted by the NSW Health Care Complaints Commission after a number of women alleged serious injuries following pelvic mesh surgery by him over nearly a decade.Living a nightmare’: implanted pelvic mesh
In 2012 Melbourne woman Jan Wise sought help for some minor urogenital issues. The procedure she received changed her life forever.
The pelvic mesh implanted in Mrs Wise – Cook Medical’s Surgisis for women’s prolapse repair after childbirth complications – is still classified as high risk nine years after it was cleared for use in Australia in 2008, and later promoted by Dr Reid as having “no mesh complication risk”.
Mrs Wise, 52, of northern Victoria, cannot speak of the devastating impacts of the mesh surgery on her life without crying.
Jan Wise: ”I can’t let the hurt just be buried and forgotten.” Photo: Joe Armao
“I try to wake up hoping the thoughts of the nightmare won’t take up too much of that day,” she said. “I allow myself only one period of sadness and crying per day.”
In an adverse event report in 2016 to Australia’s drug and medical device regulator, the Therapeutic Goods Administration (TGA), Mrs Wise said she could no longer have sex. She has back and leg pain and “shooting electrical shock pain from my lower body up through to my head”.
Advertisement
She advised the TGA she had suffered “permanent incontinence” since the surgery, her vaginal vault had collapsed and she had been diagnosed with a “putrid seroma”, or build-up of fluid in her pelvis, which caused “continuous pelvic discharge with a foul smell”.
“I am physically rotting away from the inside,” she said, adding she now lived with “the threat of timebombs” of further complications.
“It’s a dreadful mess down there, but I have to accept it’s now part of me,” she said. “I’m no longer embarrassed by my health issues. I’ve accepted things that I can’t go back and change, but I can’t let the hurt just be buried and forgotten.”
Mrs Wise said that speaking in public about her pelvic mesh surgery and supporting the Australian Pelvic Mesh Support Group, which demanded the TGA list 30 known mesh complications on its website in 2016, had helped her keep going. She will make a submission to an upcoming Senate inquiry on transvaginal (surgery via the vagina rather than the abdomen) mesh devices and procedures.
Several specialists have told her they cannot provide further surgical options to alleviate the symptoms. One offered pain management. A major legal firm declined to take legal action on Mrs Wise’s behalf because the number of women implanted with Surgisis for prolapse in Australia was relatively small, the risks involved with legal action were high, and her case would not be “commercially viable”.
She no longer teaches people to drive, or rides a motorbike, or enjoys the social events with her husband at a motorcycle club that were a significant part of their lives.
“I did not have any of these issues before being implanted with this product,” Mrs Wise said. “Before the surgery I’d lost a lot of weight and I felt so fit and healthy. I had the surgery because of incontinence and I went to a doctor who was promoted as a women’s health expert. He told me he had done the repair procedure many hundreds of times and to him it was a simple fix.
“People were waiting to see me get well, but I didn’t get well. No one knew what was going on, and you can’t talk about what’s happened because it’s so awful and so private. I thought I was the only one.”
Asked about Mrs Wise’s surgery, Dr Reid said he had “no recollection of that and I don’t want to comment”.
Dr Reid disclosed to a urogynaecological conference in April 2011 that he had “received financial support from the manufacturer, developer, distributor of the Surgisis device”. He told the Newcastle Herald the support related to speaker’s fees at conferences.
In 2006 Cook Medical released a public statement in America claiming a “94 per cent success rate” for a version of Surgisis pig intestine prolapse mesh, based on “research conducted by Dr Richard Reid” in Australia.
Dr Reid said he had “no idea what they’re relying on” to make the statement. He said he had completed “audits” of his surgery and presented them at a conference, but only held “discussions” with Cook about his results. He said he was unaware of the 2006 Cook Medical statement.
In 2015 Cook Medical cited research by Dr Reid and other doctors in an unsuccessful attempt to stop the US Food and Drug Administration from reclassifying its transvaginal pig intestine meshes to high risk. The administration found there was “no data” from randomised controlled trials with long-term follow-up to demonstrate clinical effectiveness, compared with conventional prolapse repair.
In September, 2011 Dr Reid had conditions placed over his practice that included the need to obtain valid informed consent for the surgery he performed, after a complaint to the NSW Medical Council from a woman who had Surgisis transvaginal mesh implanted by him.
In 2014 the NSW Medical Council suspended Dr Reid after further complaints from women, including at least two who were implanted with Surgisis mesh. The suspension was overturned after a NSW Civil and Administrative Tribunal appeal.
The NSW Health Care Complaints Commission is prosecuting fresh complaints against Dr Reid in the NSW Civil and Administrative Tribunal. The matter is listed for a directions hearing in April.
Dr Reid was suspended for three months by the Michigan Board of Medicine in 1998 and fined $10,000 after findings of “incompetence” following surgery on three women, leading to at least one substantial financial settlement.
The disciplinary actions were not carried out because Dr Reid returned to Australia in November 1996 to resume work after more than a decade as a gynaecologist and obstetrician in America. Dr Reid told the Newcastle Herald he had advised the then NSW Medical Board of the Michigan suspension when he returned to Australia.
The NSW Medical Board (which became the NSW Medical Council) did not become aware of the US board’s action against Dr Reid until 2006 after a complaint from an Australian patient, the Medical Council told the Herald in a statement.
Under disclosure rules applying to doctors in 1996 Dr Reid was only required to complete a non-identifying questionnaire when he returned to Australia, which was filed with the Department of Health for statistical purposes. It was not until an amendment to the Medical Practice Act in 2000 that doctors were required to record if they had been suspended in Australia or elsewhere in the previous year, the Medical Council said.
One of the American women in the Michigan Board case, who was 23 when she first saw Dr Reid in 1989, was awarded $7.6 million in a civil case after she was left with serious complications following eight surgical procedures. Dr Reid told the board the surgical procedures were carried out as part of approved research.
The Herald understands the conduct of the US proceedings and decisions on settlements were made by Dr Reid’s insurers.
A Cook Medical spokesperson said every patient’s case was unique and “it wouldn’t be appropriate for us to comment without all of the information about this specific case”.
http://www.concordregister.com/woman-speaks-out-over-devastating-impact-of-mesh-surgery/
-
Warning, delicate subject ahead (not for children)
Mar 28, 2017 | WND
By Patty Ann Malley
Have you ever caught a glimpse of those trans-vaginal mesh/bladder sling lawsuits advertised on late night television? Watch the video below to get the lowdown.
The New York Post, however, is not delving into legalities when it reports on the horror show experienced by Theresa Bartram of Brighton, England and her unnamed paramour.
Bartram, now 50, endured years of incontinence after delivering her first and only child. This condition resulted in Bartram being unable to engage in sexual activity without losing bladder control, a limiting situation to say the least. Driven by hopes of a normal life and a medical procedure that promised to resolve her debilitating condition, Bartram yielded to the use of transvaginal tape to lift her prolapsed bladder, holding in place.
For two short years, Bartram enjoyed her newfound functionality, only to seriously wound her partner when “It was like it (her vagina) had grown teeth,” she said. The man in question reportedly suffered grave injury, spouting blood after the fated encounter. “After that, he was scared of my lady garden and approached it as if it was a Venus flytrap and he was a bluebottle (fly).”
That was back in 2009. Bartram’s physician insisted that there was nothing wrong with her bladder sling. The couple, however, broke up. Bartram, alone and terrified of causing more harm, subsequently occupied her time with rigorous exercise and dieting only to be hit with a barrage of other issues: vomiting, diarrhea, severe stomachaches and bloated stomach.
“She was diagnosed with irritable bowel syndrome and given antidepressants. Eventually, she had her gallbladder removed,” the Post continues. “Finally, in 2015, she was told the mesh had to be removed urgently because it had breached her vaginal wall and caused an abscess that turned septic.”
And lo and behold, during the surgery the mesh was found to be hard, and fitted far too low. The boyfriend’s claim that “it felt like razor-sharp teeth” was not some figment of the imagination. Neither was Bartram’s subsequent incontinence and vaginal numbness.
Sling the Mesh, advertised as a campaign against an operation ruining women’s lives, has provided Bartram camaraderie, if not solace in her condition. But beware and warn the women in your life: “Once inserted the mesh takes about four to six weeks to knit into the tissues and after that surgeons say that taking it out is like trying to get chewing gum out of matted hair.”
http://www.wnd.com/2017/03/when-llamas-attack/
Client Attorney Privileged/Attorney Work Product/At Request of Counsel
Online Sources
Add recipients
Suggested