Preview Newsletter
Ethicon Media Monitoring 6/12/2017
-
Philly Jury Clears J&J In Latest Pelvic Mesh Case
Jun 9, 2017 | Law 360
By Matt Fair
Johnson & Johnson’s losing streak in pelvic mesh litigation in Philadelphia ended on Friday as a jury rejected claims that a defective implant had left a woman facing the prospect of a lifetime of chronic pain. -
J&J Wins First Pelvic Mesh Trial in Philadelphia
Jun 10, 2017 | Mesh Medical Device Newsdesk
The fifth trial over its family of polypropylene pelvic mesh finally secures healthcare giant Johnson & Johnson a win in this Philadelphia court. -
Pain and Suffering Caps Lifted by Florida Supreme Court
Jun 9, 2017 | Mesh Medical Device Newsdesk
Consumers injured by medical malpractice may have more avenues to justice in court with the lifting of caps on pain and suffering in medical malpractice cases, a cornerstone of tort reform put in place in 2003 under then Gov. Jeb Bush. -
Ralph Nader Radio Hour on the Travesty of Mesh Complications
Jun 10, 2017 | Mesh Medical Device Newsdesk
Consumer advocate Ralph Nader interviews Dr. Robert Bendavid on hernia mesh and Jane Akre, editor of Mesh News Desk on the ubiquitous nature and complications of polypropylene meshes.
Client Attorney Privileged/Attorney Work Product/At Request of Counsel
Online Sources
Full Text of Stories Below
-
Philly Jury Clears J&J In Latest Pelvic Mesh Case
Jun 9, 2017 | Law 360
By Matt Fair
Law360, Philadelphia (June 9, 2017, 5:39 PM EDT) -- Johnson & Johnson’s losing streak in pelvic mesh litigation in Philadelphia ended on Friday as a jury rejected claims that a defective implant had left a woman facing the prospect of a lifetime of chronic pain.
Jurors agreed that J&J subsidiary Ethicon Inc. had both defectively designed its so-called TVT Secur pelvic mesh, which plaintiff Kimberly Adkins was implanted with in July 2010 to treat her urinary stress incontinence, and failed to provide adequate warnings about its risks, but declined to back claims that the Ohio resident had suffered any injuries as a result.
Ethicon’s victory comes after losses in four prior mesh-related cases dating back to December 2015 that have left the company facing nearly $50 million in damages.
The verdict came after an Ethicon attorney admitted during closing arguments that there was potentially troubling evidence that the company had rushed TVT Secur to market despite internal concerns regarding the potential for high failure rates and medical complications among women using the product.
“There’s some things that trouble you about this case, no question,” said William Gage, an attorney with Butler Snow LLP representing Ethicon.
But he stressed that there was clear evidence in Adkins’ medical record showing that her physician had clearly communicated the risk, as eventually happened, that the implant could erode into her vaginal canal.
“She was warned about erosion, and erosion is why she’s here,” he said. “You have no evidence [her doctor] didn’t know these risks.”
While Adkins claimed that erosion was not listed as a risk in the product’s instructions for use, or IFUs, Gage said that erosion was commonly understood in the medical community as a potential consequence from any pelvic mesh implant.
“The IFU is not the only source of risk information for doctors,” he said.
He also argued that Adkins had presented no evidence, as required under relevant law in her home state of Ohio, that there was a reasonable alternative design that would have prevented her injury.
Adkins filed suit in July 2013 seeking damages after a portion of the TVT Secur implant eroded into her vaginal canal, causing significant pain.
Trial in her case kicked off nearly three weeks ago.
The mesh erosion resulted in Adkins undergoing surgery to remove a portion of the implant in September 2012, but her attorney told jurors during closing arguments that she has continued to experience significant pain that has largely robbed her of the ability to have normal sexual relations with her partner.
“She cannot have normal sexual relations for the rest of her life with her partner of 20 years,” said Bryan Aylstock, an attorney with Aylstock Witkin Kreis & Overholtz PLLC representing Adkins. “Do you know how that makes her feel? She knows she cannot please the man she loves, and she knows the man she loves will never be able to please her.”
But Gage urged the jurors, even despite Adkins’ injuries, not to allow sympathy to taint their deliberations of the particular facts of her case.
“You can’t fill in the gaps with sympathy,” he said. “You have to apply the law.”
Aylstock responded that it wasn't sympathy he was interested in.
"We want justice," he told the jury.
Aylstock told Law360 on Friday afternoon that he was disappointed with the verdict.
"We're obviously disappointed with the end result, but we proved that this is a product that should have never been on the market and that Ethicon and Johnson & Johnson behaved irresponsibly in putting a defective product on the market," he said.
Ethicon spokeswoman Kristen Wallace stressed that mesh products were a safe means of treating urinary stress incontinence like that suffered by Adkins.
"We empathize with women suffering from stress urinary incontinence, which can be a serious and debilitating condition," she said. "There are various treatment choices for women with this condition seeking to improve their quality of life, including surgical treatment with implantable mesh, which is backed by years of clinical research and is considered by most doctors to be the gold standard treatment."
Adkins is represented by Bryan Aylstock, Daniel Thornburgh and James Barger of Aylstock Witkin Kreis & Overholtz PLLC, Benjamin Anderson of Anderson Law Offices, and Lee Balefsky, Christopher Gomez and Christine Clarke of Kline & Specter PC.
Ethicon is represented by Kimberly Bueno of Scott Douglass & McConnico LLP, William Gage, Chad Hutchinson and Jordan Walker of Butler Snow LLP, and Kenneth Murphy, Melissa Merk and Andrew Reeve of Drinker Biddle & Reath LLP.
The case is Kimberly Adkins v. Ethicon Inc. et al., case number 130700919, in the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County, Pennsylvania.
--Editing by Rebecca Flanagan and Jack Karp.
Update: This story has been updated to include a statement from Ethicon.https://www.law360.com/trials/articles/933225/philly-jury-clears-j-j-in-latest-pelvic-mesh-case
-
J&J Wins First Pelvic Mesh Trial in Philadelphia
Jun 10, 2017 | Mesh Medical Device Newsdesk
Mesh Medical Device News Desk, June 10, 2017 ~ The fifth trial over its family of polypropylene pelvic mesh finally secures healthcare giant Johnson & Johnson a win in this Philadelphia court.
After four straight losses in a Philadelphia court to plaintiffs injured by pelvic mesh, a jury agreed with Johnson & Johnson Friday that its pelvic mesh product did not cause the plaintiff a lifetime of pain.
However, the 12-member jury agreed J&J was liable for the defective design of its TVT-Secur.
Kimberly Adkins of Ohio was implanted with TVT-Secur (TVT-S) to treat her incontinence in July 2010.
In her complaint, Kimberly L. Adkins V. Ethicion, Inc., et al ( Case ID: 130700919) lists mesh erosion, painful sex (dyspaeurania), bleeding, catastrophic, severe, permanent injuries, chronic pain, disability, impairment, loss of enjoyment of life, and economic damages. See the Complaint here. Adkins v Ethicon
After a 12-day trial, jurors agreed that J&J subsidiary Ethicon Inc. had both defectively designed its TVT Secur pelvic mesh and failed to provide adequate warnings about its risks.
The jury did not find the TVT-Secur caused Adkins’ injuries, known as causation.
“Despite our disappointment on the issue of causation, we are grateful that the jury found that that the TVT-Secur product was both defective in design and warnings,” says Bryal Aylstock in an e-mail to Mesh News Desk.
The jurors found the product defective in design and in warning under Ohio law. Ms Adkins is a resident of Ohio so that state’s law apply.
Since the company had stipulated to the mesh causing at least some of her injuries, lead counsel, Bryan Aylstock says he will be moving for a new trial.
In April, a jury in the same court awarded plaintiff Engleman $20 million over injuries caused by her TVT-Secur. That jury decision included $17.5 million in punitive damages against Johnson & Johnson.
See the MND story here.
There are 182 pending pelvic mesh cases filed in the Philadelphia Court of Common Please, most naming defendant Johnson & Johnson/ Ethicon. ###
http://www.meshmedicaldevicenewsdesk.com/jj-wins-first-pelvic-mesh-trial-philadelphia/
-
Pain and Suffering Caps Lifted by Florida Supreme Court
Jun 9, 2017 | Mesh Medical Device Newsdesk
Mesh Medical Device News Desk, June 9, 2017~ Consumers injured by medical malpractice may have more avenues to justice in court with the lifting of caps on pain and suffering in medical malpractice cases, a cornerstone of tort reform put in place in 2003 under then Gov. Jeb Bush.
In 2007, Susan Kalitan, a dental assistant in Broward County, Florida went into surgery for carpal-tunnel syndrome. Broward Health Medical Center medical personnel perforated her esophagus with tubes inserted to deliver anesthesia.
She complained of pain in her chest and neck but was discharged. The next day she was found unresponsive at home and had to undergo lifesaving surgery on her esophagus. She was put in a drug-induced coma for weeks and had to endure additional surgeries to be able to eat again. She continues to suffer from pain the the stress of her procedure.
Kalitan filed a lawsuit and was awarded $4.7 million in non-economic damages, (also known as pain and suffering), including $2 million for present pain and suffering and $2 million for future pain and suffering. Post-trial her jury award was reduced by $3.3 million.
She sought to reinstate the jury award with an appeal to the 4thDistrict Court of Appeals.
The appellate court ruled the damage caps were unconstitutional.
On Thursday, the Florida Supreme Court in a 4-3 decision, ruled that a law that puts a cap on pain-and-suffering damages in a medical malpractice case is unconstitutional and violates the Equal Protection Clause of the Florida Constitution.
The decision could open the doors to legal pursuit of medical malpractice cases which many attorneys had rejected because of the caps.
“We conclude that the caps on noneconomic damages … arbitrarily reduce damage awards for plaintiffs who suffer the most drastic injuries,” said the majority opinion shared by Chief Justice Jorge Labarga and justices Barbara Pariente, R. Fred Lewis and Peggy Quince.
“We further conclude that because there is no evidence of a continuing medical malpractice insurance crisis justifying the arbitrary and invidious discrimination between medical malpractice victims, there is no rational relationship between the personal injury noneconomic damage caps … and alleviating this purported crisis.’’
Disagreeing with the majority were Justices Ricky Polston and Charles Canady and Alan Lawson who said it is the Legislature that should make laws depending on the facts it finds.
The law was approved in 2003 by then Gov. Jeb Bush and the Florida Legislature. It caps damages at differing amounts depending on the number of claimants and the types of defendants and was part of a vigorous tort reform movement to rein in plaintiff attorneys and “runaway juries.”
Trial attorneys, who represent the injured, opposed the damage limits.
The Sun-Sentinel reports, Florida Justice Association, a lobbying organization for trial lawyers, praised Thursday’s ruling. In a statement, interim Executive Director Paul Jess called it “a resounding victory for patients” and a “step forward that will promote safer health care in Florida.”
On the other side of the issue, doctors represented by the Florida Medical Association issued a statement that the association is disappointed with the Court’s ruling, “but given past decisions, it was not unexpected.”
As it is now amended it will lift the caps on personal injury lawsuits when there is pain-and-suffering. ###
http://www.meshmedicaldevicenewsdesk.com/pain-suffering-caps-lifted-florida-supreme-court/
-
Ralph Nader Radio Hour on the Travesty of Mesh Complications
Jun 10, 2017 | Mesh Medical Device Newsdesk
Mesh Medical Device News Desk, June 10, 2017 ~ Consumer advocate Ralph Nader interviews Dr. Robert Bendavid on hernia mesh and Jane Akre, editor of Mesh News Desk on the ubiquitous nature and complications of polypropylene meshes.
He is known to most Americans as a consumer crusader who is responsible for establishing the Public Interest Research Group, the Center for Auto Safety and Public Citizen.
His activism had resulted in an expose into the automobile industry resulting in Unsafe at Any Speed, an immediate bestseller. The book resulted in the Congressional action and the first mandated safety features for motor vehicles and traffic safety.
Lawyer, advocate and educator, Ralph Nader has been named to the list of “100 Most Influential Americans.” See more on Mr. Nader here and visit his Radio Hour here.
On Thursday, June 9, Ralph Nader interviewed your editor and Dr. Robert Bendavid, a hernia mesh expert, and non-mesh doctor at the Shouldice Hospital in Toronto. Dr. Bendavid is also a founding father of the American Hernia Society.
Here is that interview. Hit the play arrow on the timeline and Enjoy!
https://ralphnaderradiohour.com/synthetic-mesh-epidemic/And Please Add your voice to the Media Sources Ralph Nader mentions:60 Minutes
http://www.cbsnews.com/contact-us/or
http://www.cbsnews.com/news/contact-information-08-07-1998/and – Jane Brody at the New York Times
inquiries@janebrody.nethttp://www.meshmedicaldevicenewsdesk.com/ralph-nader-radio-hour-travesty-mesh-complications/
Client Attorney Privileged/Attorney Work Product/At Request of Counsel
Online Sources
Full Text of Stories Below
Add recipients
Suggested