Preview Newsletter
Ethicon Media Monitoring 8/29/2017
-
Pelvic mesh victims disgusted at suggestion of anal sex as solution
Aug 29, 2017 | The Guardian
By Christopher Knaus
Australian victims of faulty pelvic mesh implants have expressed disgust at doctors’ suggestions of anal intercourse as a solution to their ruined sex lives. -
Mesh victims disgusted by doctors’ anal sex advice
Aug 29, 2017 | Starts at 60
Australian victims of the botched pelvic mesh implants say they are disgusted by suggestions they use anal sex to combat their ruined sex lives, or forget about sex all together. -
Ethicon Physiomesh Lawsuits May Now Be Filed Directly in Federal Multidistrict Litigation
Aug 29, 2017 | RX Injury Help
By Laurie Villanueva
The federal court overseeing dozens of hernia mesh lawsuits involving Ethicon, Inc.’s allegedly defective Physiomesh Flexible Composite Mesh devices has given plaintiff’s leave to file their cases directly in the U.S. District Court, Northern District of Georgia. -
How Cases Are Dismissed – Adams v. American Medical Systems
Aug 28, 2017 | Mesh Medical Device Newsdesk
The following story underscores the importance of recognizing injury as soon as it happens and considering litigation.
Client Attorney Privileged/Attorney Work Product/At Request of Counsel
Online Sources
-
Pelvic mesh victims disgusted at suggestion of anal sex as solution
Aug 29, 2017 | The Guardian
By Christopher Knaus
Australian victims of faulty pelvic mesh implants have expressed disgust at doctors’ suggestions of anal intercourse as a solution to their ruined sex lives.
A disturbing email exchange between doctors emerged earlier this month as part of a federal court class action in Australia, which was launched by hundreds of women who had the devices implanted to treat common childbirth complications.
Johnson & Johnson tried to prevent report about pelvic mesh devices, court hearsRead more
The devices, manufactured by pharmaceutical giant Johnson & Johnson, caused chronic and debilitating pain, including during intercourse.
The emails reflected a callous attitude towards women among French gynaecologists involved with the company.
In the emails, doctors talk about alternatives to sex for women suffering painful intercourse. “It is no less true that sodomy could be a good alternative!” one doctor wrote. Another discussed the difficulty of raising sexual matters with his patients.
“I said to myself, there you go, for your next prolapse [patient], you talk to her about orgasms. OK! But also about fellatio, sodomy, the clitoris with or without G-spot etc,” he wrote. “I am sure of one thing: that I would very quickly be treated like some kind of sex maniac (which, perhaps, I am) or a pervert, or an unhealthily curious person.”'Scandal' of vaginal mesh removal rates revealed by NHS records
Read more
The attitudes accord with evidence before the current Senate inquiry into the devices, which has heard women were advised to consider anal intercourse as a solution to the extreme pain caused by intercourse.
The comments outraged members of the Australian Pelvic Mesh Support Group, which sent Guardian Australia a collection of anonymised responses from women to the revelations.
Many of the women said they had encountered similar attitudes from their own doctors.
“My husband and I were given advice [about] sexual activity,” one woman said. “We were gobsmacked. The whole sexual deviation thing is supposed to make the pain and complications from mesh go away. I find this type of advice disgusting.”
Another woman said the comments were demoralising and devalued women. She said they represented another form of abuse.
“Our vaginas have been abused by mesh and now doctors are suggesting our anus be abused. Despicable! Only a misogynist could think this way,” she said.
A third woman wrote that the “appalling” comments showed a complete lack of respect to the women involved. Another wrote that they suggested women were nothing more than a receptacle to satisfy men.
“The suggestion that women who are unable to have vaginal intercourse should practise anal instead completely devalues a woman’s right to a full and healthy sex life as an active, empowered and fulfilled participant,” she said.
“It suggests that a woman is nothing more than a receptacle to satisfy men and that ‘any hole will do’. I’m appalled that anyone, particularly a woman’s treating medical practitioner, would be so thoughtless and arrogant as to suggest that anal sex is an adequate solution to sexual dysfunction.”
Greens senator Rachel Siewert is chairing the senate inquiry into the devices. Siewert described the treatment of many of the women as appalling.The stories you need to read, in one handy email
Read more
“The way many women have been treated when trying to get treatment and support when they have had bad outcomes from mesh implants is appalling, including suggestions by medical professionals that anal intercourse is an alternative to vaginal intercourse after mesh implants have gone terribly wrong,” she said.
“We have heard a lot of harrowing evidence during the inquiry – so many women have been horribly impacted by mesh implants. There is a clear pattern emerging of poor processes and advice which is leading to women having their lives severely impacted.”
The class action is continuing in the federal court.
https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2017/aug/28/pelvic-mesh-victims-disgusted-at-suggestion-of-sodomy-as-solution
-
Mesh victims disgusted by doctors’ anal sex advice
Aug 29, 2017 | Starts at 60
Australian victims of the botched pelvic mesh implants say they are disgusted by suggestions they use anal sex to combat their ruined sex lives, or forget about sex all together.
Thousands of women around the world have been fitted with the faulty implants, which cause debilitating pain that is often magnified during vaginal sex.
The pelvic mesh implants were most often prescribed to women to help with incontinence and prolapse caused by childbirth.
A federal class action against the mesh creators, pharmaceutical giant Johnson and Johnson, is currently underway in Sydney. Earlier this month, lawyers for the women revealed an email chain by French doctors in which one said he “would not like my wife to undergo this procedure”.
That same doctor, a gynecologist, also congratulated a colleague for telling women “there is more to life than sex”.
He later went on to say he was reluctant to talk to middle-aged women with pelvic floor injuries about “fellatio, sodomy, the clitoris with or without g-spot”.
On Tuesday, The Guardian published a series of anonymous responses from some of the women involved in the class action against Johnson and Johnson, with many expressing their disgust at the doctors’ take on the issue.
“Our vaginas have been abused by mesh and now doctors are suggesting our anus be abused. Despicable! Only a misogynist could think this way,” one woman wrote, reports The Guardian.
Another said she and her husband were “gobsmacked” when they were dismissed by their doctor after asking about how to improve their sex life while she was living with the painful mesh.
About 700 women are involved in the lawsuit against Johnson and Johnson, with many giving harrowing evidence in court.Have you been affected by the mesh implant? What do you think of these doctors’ advice? Do you feel for the women affected?
https://startsat60.com/health/mesh-victims-disgusted-by-doctors-anal-sex-advice
-
Ethicon Physiomesh Lawsuits May Now Be Filed Directly in Federal Multidistrict Litigation
Aug 29, 2017 | RX Injury Help
By Laurie Villanueva
Laurie Villanueva is an attorney with Bernstein Liebhard LLP
The federal court overseeing dozens of hernia mesh lawsuits involving Ethicon, Inc.’s allegedly defective Physiomesh Flexible Composite Mesh devices has given plaintiff’s leave to file their cases directly in the U.S. District Court, Northern District of Georgia.
Direct filing is intended to improve judicial efficiency, and will eliminate delays associated with the transfer of cases from other federal jurisdictions.
“The direct filing of any Complaint does not constitute a determination by this Court that jurisdiction or venue is proper in this Court. Upon the completion of pretrial proceedings applicable to a case filed directly in this MDL pursuant to this paragraph, and where appropriate, the Court shall transfer the case pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1404 to a court of appropriate jurisdiction and venue for trial,” U.S. District Judge Richard Story wrote in an Order dated August 22nd. “For any Complaint, no matter how filed, Defendants reserve all rights to challenge personal jurisdiction or the appropriate venue after the conclusion of pretrial proceedings in this Court, or at any other appropriate time.”
Judge Story’s order addressed several other matters, including the Court’s intention to require all plaintiffs to file a Short Form Complaint. Lead Counsel for the parties are to jointly submit a proposed Short Form Complaint to the Court by September 12, 2017.92 Physiomesh Lawsuits Now Pending in Federal Multidistrict Litigation
The consolidated Physiomesh litigation was established in June, in order to allow all federally-filed injury claims involving the hernia mesh products to undergo coordinated discovery and other pretrial proceedings. Initially, just 18 Physiomesh lawsuits were transferred to the Northern District of Georgia. Dozens of new cases have since been added to the litigation, bringing the total number of pending cases to 92 as of August 15th.
Ethicon launched the Physiomesh product line in 2010. The multi-layer hernia patches are constructed from non-absorbable polypropylene (plastic) filaments that are woven into fabric. Each side of the polypropylene mesh is covered with an absorbable film coating, which is intended to help the patch incorporate into the body and reduce inflammation. However, plaintiffs pursuing Physiomesh lawsuits claim that this design actually inhibits incorporation and places patients at risk for serious injuries and complications.
“When affixed to the body’s tissue, the impermeable multi-layer coating of the Physiomesh prevents fluid escape, which leads to seroma formation, and which in turn can cause infection, abscess formation and other complications,” the complaints state. “The multi-layer coating provides a breeding ground for bacteria in which the bacteria cannot be eliminated by the body’s immune response, which allows infection to proliferate.”
Ethicon announced a worldwide market withdrawal of Physiomesh Flexible Composite Mesh in May 2016, after unpublished data from two European hernia registries suggested that the product was associated with higher average recurrence and revision rates compared to other meshes used in laparoscopic ventral hernia repair. The company was unable to determine the cause of this issue but noted that it could be due to product characteristics, as well as operative and patient factors.
According to Ethicon’s recall notice, the hernia patches included in the Physiomesh withdrawal will not be returning to the market.
http://www.rxinjuryhelp.com/news/2017/08/28/ethicon-physiomesh-lawsuits-may-now-be-filed-directly-in-federal-multidistrict-litigation/
-
How Cases Are Dismissed – Adams v. American Medical Systems
Aug 28, 2017 | Mesh Medical Device Newsdesk
Mesh Medical Device News Desk, August 28, 2017 ~ The following story underscores the importance of recognizing injury as soon as it happens and considering litigation.
Many people are repelled by the idea of “going to court.”
MND has heard multiple times, “I’m not that sort of person,” but there is no shame in righting a wrong in court as is allowed by theSeventh Amendment. Financial reparations are the only remedy you have in civil litigation, such as product liability, also known as defective product law.
If you delay, you could have the outcome of Gerry Adams.
The Order and Judgment came down last Friday, August 25 in the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals. It was the last bite of the apple for Gerry Adams, a Utah woman who was implanted with an American Medical Systems/ Caldera Desarda mesh in July 2007.
The case is Gerry A. Adams v. American Medical System, Inc and Caldera Medical (14-4057).Circuit Judge David M. Ebel wrote the Order and Judgment.
UTAH LAW
Since she is a resident of Utah, her product liability case was governed by Utah law. Plaintiff, Gerry Adams alleged her mesh sling was defective. The question was whether she had exceeded the statute of limitations.
In Utah, the statute requires Adams to bring a claim within two years after she discovered or should have discovered her “harm and its cause.”
The defense says Adams should have known by November 2007 she had been harmed. That’s when she was told she had to endure a second surgery to remove part of the mesh sling to remedy pain and bleeding. Instead she waited 5.5 years.
The district court dismissed Adam’s claims and the appellate court agreed under Fed. Rules of Civil Procedure 12 (b) (6).
BACKGROUND
Adams had an American Medical Systems and Caldera Medical Desara Sling System implanted in July 2007. Right after surgery, Adams complained of severe pain and vaginal bleeding.
By November 2007, doctors discovered a portion of the sling had migrated and was protruding into the vaginal canal and needed to be excised or removed, “as much as possible.” By December she had nearly 2 cm removed causing worse incontinence than before along with vaginal pain, bleeding, painful intercourse, incontinence and severe infections, occurring every couple of months.
By February 2013, another doctor found two pieces of mesh protruding through her vaginal roof and recommended a full removal of the sling.
By June 2013, Ms. Adams filed a product liability lawsuit, 5.5 years after the second surgery.
TOO LATE?
The defendants filed a Motion to Dismiss based on exceeding the statute of limitations. Soon afterwards, Adams entered into a settlement with Caldera. Caldera is now dismissed from this appeal.For her part, Adams said the statute of limitations should begin when she knew there was a defect in the mesh sling. Only when the doctor in 2013 recommended a full removal would she have gained that understanding.
The appellate court said it could not find any Utah Supreme Court decision holding that a two-year limitations period does not run until the plaintiff knows, or should have known that the harm is caused not just by the product but by a “defect” in that product.
Admittedly, the Utah Supreme Court has not addressed this issue.
What is absent from this decision is what Adams was told – the mesh is fine, the mesh is not defective, it couldn’t be the mesh, it’s your problem alone, it can’t be removed, and on and on. Also, Adams is not an attorney and may have been easily dissuaded from an understanding about product liability law and what constitutes a “defect”.
The Honorable Neil Gorsuch participated in the oral argument but not in the final decision in the Adams case, which was left up to the two remaining justices in the panel, Ebel and Tymkovich. Gorsuch is now a U.S. Supreme Court Judge.
Earlier this month, Endo International, which owns AMS agreed to settle the 22,000 unresolved pelvic mesh product liability lawsuits here and globally. The company agreed to set aside $775 million bringing to a total of more than $3.58 billion to resolve its pelvic mesh litigation.
LEARN MORE:
See the MND story here.
Statute of Limitation by State, Findlaw here.
MND on Statute of Limitations, June 2012, here.
Seventh Amendment to the U.S. Constitution here.
https://www.meshmedicaldevicenewsdesk.com/cases-dismissed-adams-v-american-medical-systems/
Client Attorney Privileged/Attorney Work Product/At Request of Counsel
Online Sources
Add recipients
Suggested