Preview Newsletter
Ethicon Media Monitoring 4/6/2017
-
J&J, Mesh Patient End Texas High Court Appeal
Apr 5, 2017 | Law 360
By Cara Salvatore
A woman whose $1.2 million pelvic-mesh injury award was erased by an appeals court has asked the Texas Supreme Court to call off a final review, citing a settlement with device maker Johnson & Johnson. -
Canadians Join Hernia Mesh Class Action Lawsuit
Apr 6, 2017 | DrugWatch
By Michelle Llamas
As Americans continue to file hernia mesh lawsuits, Canadians began their hernia mesh class action claiming they weren’t warned of the implant’s risks. -
Welcome to Mesh Medical Device News Desk, aka Mesh News Desk
Apr 5, 2017 | Mesh Medical Device Newsdesk
By Jane Akre
Welcome to Mesh News Desk (MND), also known as Mesh Medical Device News Desk where we following the goings on of the largely unregulated medical device industry and its fallout on the public.
Client Attorney Privileged/Attorney Work Product/At Request of Counsel
Online Sources
-
J&J, Mesh Patient End Texas High Court Appeal
Apr 5, 2017 | Law 360
By Cara Salvatore
Law360, New York (April 5, 2017, 3:17 PM EDT) -- A woman whose $1.2 million pelvic-mesh injury award was erased by an appeals court has asked the Texas Supreme Court to call off a final review, citing a settlement with device maker Johnson & Johnson.
Linda Batiste won $1.2 million in April 2014 over injuries allegedly caused by the TVT-O bladder sling. An appeals court overturned the trial award in November 2015 and Batiste quickly appealed to the Texas Supreme Court, where the case has been shelved ever since the two sides said last May that they'd reached a settlement in principle.
They asked the court Monday to dismiss the petition for review — despite still calling the deal an “agreement in principle.”
“The parties to this appeal have reached an agreement in principle to settle this case. Therefore, the parties file this joint request to dismiss the petition for review,” lawyers for Batiste and J&J said in the joint filing.
In the short motion, they also requested unspecified “general relief.”
TVT-O pelvic mesh is used to treat stress urinary incontinence. The Dallas appeals court had held in November 2015 that Batiste must show a link between an alleged defect — like the alleged propensity of the TVT-O's heavyweight, small-pore mesh to erode — and her injuries, instead of just showing that injuries were caused by the device as a whole.
Representatives for the parties were not immediately available for comment.
Batiste had first requested that the state high court put the case on hold in May 2016, saying the parties had reached a settlement in principle but needed time to hammer out details and get them on paper. A status report from Jan. 31 of this year indicated that they'd made “significant progress” and asked for the last in a line of extensions.
Batiste had contended the appellate court wrongly required her to prove her injuries were caused by a specific defect, saying Texas courts are split on whether medical device cases are specifically exempt from a Texas product liability law that requires plaintiffs to isolate causation to a specific defect.
That's a standard under which “it will be virtually impossible for any plaintiff to prevail on a product liability claim against a drug or device manufacturer in Texas,” Batiste had told the high court in her initial petition.
The Dallas appeals court said in November 2015 that while it’s undisputed that TVT-O can cause complications and it’s undisputed that Batiste suffered from those complications, the law of products liability doesn’t guarantee a product will be free of risk.
Batiste is represented by Tim Goss and Sara Turman-Vedral of Freese & Goss PLLC, Peter de la Cerda of Edwards & de la Cerda PLLC, Richard Capshaw of Capshaw & Associates, and David Matthews of Matthews and Associates.
Johnson & Johnson is represented by Stephen Brody and Charles Lifland of O'Melveny & Myers LLP and Scott Stolley of Cherry Petersen Landry Albert LLP.
The case is Batiste v. Johnson & Johnson et al., case number 15-0975, in the Supreme Court of Texas.https://www.law360.com/trials/articles/909683/j-j-mesh-patient-end-texas-high-court-appeal
-
Canadians Join Hernia Mesh Class Action Lawsuit
Apr 6, 2017 | DrugWatch
By Michelle Llamas
As Americans continue to file hernia mesh lawsuits, Canadians began their hernia mesh class action claiming they weren’t warned of the implant’s risks.
The device at the center of the claims is Ethicon’s Physiomesh Hernia Mesh which Health Canada recalled in 2016. The Canadian agency’s action came after it learned that recurrence and reoperation rates with the device were higher than those of other meshes.
After the recall, Canadians who received Physiomesh suffered severe pain and had to undergo additional surgeries to repair hernias that reoccurred.
Canadian lawyer Jill McCartney is representing plaintiffs in the class action. She told CTV News that plaintiffs had their hernias “come back with greater severity.”
“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,” McCartney said.
Hernia mesh recipients wonder how the product was approved for use in the first place.
“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,” Colleen Copland, one of the plaintiffs awaiting a second hernia surgery, told CTV News.
Ethicon said it would defend against the lawsuits. The company voluntarily pulled Physiomesh from the U.S. market in May 2016 but called it a withdrawal and not a recall.Hernia Mesh Brands in U.S. Lawsuits
Americans who received Physiomesh are also facing the same complications, including severe pain, abbesses, infections and organ perforation. Ethicon faces growing litigation from Physiomesh in the U.S.
In addition to Physiomesh, other brands are also the subject of lawsuits in state and federal courts. Manufacturers include Ethicon, C.R. Bard, Atrium and others.
About two dozen lawsuits are pending in the newly created Atrium C-QUR hernia mesh multidistrict litigation (MDL) in New Hampshire before Judge Landya B. McCafferty. McCafferty recently appointed plaintiff’s attorney D. Todd Matthews to lead the MDL. Matthews is a part of a five-member Plaintiff’s Executive Committee.
“The injuries these plaintiffs have suffered are horrific. I certainly plan to honor the court and the victims of this product by working hard and doing everything in my power to see that justice prevails,” Matthews said in a statement.
According to Atrium’s marketing, the fish oil coating on C-QUR mesh is supposed to prevent it from adhering to the bowel. But, plaintiffs in the MDL allege Atrium’s mesh sticks to the bowel and other organs causing ulcers, infections, bowel obstructions and other complications.Hernia Mesh Maker Paid Millions in Settlements and Verdicts
C.R. Bard was one of the first companies to recall its hernia mesh implant — the Kugel Composix Hernia Patch. Following the recall, the company faced thousands of lawsuits. In the second bellwether trial, the jury found Kugel Patch was defective and awarded $1.5 million to the plaintiff Christopher Thorpe in 2010.
The following year, the company settled more than 2,600 lawsuits for $184 million.
While Ethicon has not discussed settlement for any of its U.S. Physiomesh cases, one of the first Physiomesh lawsuits filed by Matthew Huff heads to trial in January 2018.
https://www.drugwatch.com/2017/04/05/canada-hernia-mesh-class-action-lawsuit/
-
Welcome to Mesh Medical Device News Desk, aka Mesh News Desk
Apr 5, 2017 | Mesh Medical Device Newsdesk
By Jane Akre
Mesh News Desk, April 2017 ~ Welcome to Mesh News Desk (MND), also known as Mesh Medical Device News Desk where we following the goings on of the largely unregulated medical device industry and its fallout on the public.
Synthetic polypropylene mesh and its biologic cousins are used to treat hernia and incontinence and pelvic organ prolapse. For more than five years, this website has been following the legal, medical and regulatory news that has come from this unfortunate chapter in American medical treatment.
Pelvic and hernia mesh is still used every day and often doctors are trained to use mesh medical devices as the go-to treatment for hernias, incontinence and prolapse, despite the many injuries that have resulted from their use.
Despite what you are told, The Mesh Is the Same!
There are more than 100,000 product liability lawsuits filed in just one court amassed in Charleston, WV and many more filed in various state courts including California and New Jersey.
The bellwether trials, that are supposed to give each side an idea of the value of the cases, have largely gone by the wayside and now we appear to be in standoff mode as the last holdout manufacturers, Boston Sci, Bard and J&J, are in a game of chicken with plaintiffs’ lawyers.
Who will last the longest? The one with the deepest pockets? Meanwhile the women linger. Those who want to take their chance in state court are often denied essentially denying her 7th Amendment right to trial.
So that’s where we stand.
Despite the product liability litigation, mesh is still used every day. Women are told “It’s different mesh.” It isn’t.
See the story “Top 10 Myths Women are Told Today about Pelvic Mesh” here
Please use the Search Bar to find stories in the archives. Click on the News, Legal and Medical titles to unfold stories within that category.
Comment with another name and do not use your last name please. Thank you.No harmful comments are allowed- no disparaging one another or in-fighting. Thank you.
If you are told you need polypropylene mesh to correct prolapse or incontinence, you will need to direct your own medical care and be a truly informed consumer. Ask if the doctor can do a non-mesh repair as a first line of treatment?
We hope these pages help you toward that goal. Unless and until one can predict who will react negatively, the Precautionary Principle is advised.
These pages will attest to that.
Your Editor,
Jane Akre
http://www.meshmedicaldevicenewsdesk.com/welcome-mesh-medical-device-news-desk-aka-mesh-news-desk/
Client Attorney Privileged/Attorney Work Product/At Request of Counsel
Online Sources
Add recipients
Suggested