Preview Newsletter
Ethicon Media Monitoring 9/27/2017
-
‘I Will Suffer For The Rest Of My Life’: Pennsylvania Woman Awarded $57M Verdict In Johnson & Johnson Lawsuit
Sep 27, 2017 | CBS Philly
By Stephanie Stahl
A record jury verdict of $57 million against Johnson and Johnson was awarded to a Pennsylvania woman who was injured by a product that thousands of women have. -
Expert who quit mesh implant review warns over use
Sep 27, 2017 | BBC Scotland
By Lucy Adams
The expert at the centre of a review group looking at the safety of mesh implants in Scotland has spoken for the first time about why he resigned. -
Women have the right to know about injuries of vaginal birth beforehand
Sep 27, 2017 | The Guardian
By Sascha Callaghan and Amy Corderoy
It’s not just the constant pain. After a while, you learn to adjust to that new normal. It’s the feeling that you weren’t warned; that you never gave your consent for the risks you were exposed to. -
Scotland Calls for International Summit on Mesh Crisis
Sep 26, 2017 | Mesh Medical Device Newsdesk
Scotland was the first country to call on a ban on the use of polypropylene (PP) transvaginal mesh after hundreds of injured women came forward. It was the first to say NO to an official report. Now the former health secretary is calling for international action. -
Can You Change Your Law Firm?
Sep 26, 2017 | Mesh Medical Device Newsdesk
Can you change law firms if you are unhappy with your representation? Get your retainer agreement out and look at the fine print is a first place to start. -
Victim told Transvaginal Mesh would make her “Feel like a 16-year-old Virgin”
Sep 27, 2017 | Lawyers and Settlements.
By Jane Mundy
An Australian transvaginal mesh inquiry underway involves complaints that would make good copy for a vulgar tabloid. One victim testified how she was told the mesh would make her feel like a “16-year-old virgin”. -
Ethicon Seeks Reversal of $57 Million Transvaginal Mesh Lawsuit Verdict on Statute of Limitations Grounds
Sep 26, 2017 | RX Injury Help (blog)
By Sandy Liebhard
Ethicon, Inc. has asked a Philadelphia judge to overturn a $57.1 million verdict awarded last month at the conclusion of Pennsylvania’s sixth transvaginal mesh lawsuit trial.
Client Attorney Privileged/Attorney Work Product/At Request of Counsel
Online Sources
-
Sep 27, 2017 | CBS Philly
By Stephanie Stahl
PHILADELPHIA (CBS) — A record jury verdict of $57 million against Johnson and Johnson was awarded to a Pennsylvania woman who was injured by a product that thousands of women have.
“It was a very happy day, but I was still sad and depressed,” said Ella Ebaugh. “I’m in excruciating pain when I’m standing, it hurts when I’m sitting.”
Ebaugh, 51, was in too much pain to enjoy her daughter Jamie’s wedding.
“It makes her upset but I still love her, she’s still a wonderful mother,” said Jamie Dang.
She’d been active on a softball team, busy with her family and like millions of women, Ella suffered from stress urinary incontinence.
“I had five children and that’s what weakened my pelvic floor muscles,” Ella tells CBS3’s Stephanie Stahl.
For women like Ella, who need surgery, pelvic mesh is often used to reinforce tissue around the urethra.
“My urethra is mangled and I will suffer for the rest of my life,” she said.
The mesh used in Ella’s surgery was made by Johnson and Johnson’s Ethicon unit. It eroded into Ella’s urethra. Three revision surgeries later some of the mesh remains embedded.
“I feel like I’m on fire you know down there,” said Ella.
Ella is among an estimated hundreds of thousands of women who have mesh made by Ethicon. Thousands of lawsuits have been filed nationwide.
Lawyer Kila Baldwin, with the Kline & Specter Law Firm in Philadelphia, is representing Ella and a thousand other women in Philadelphia lawsuits against Johnson and Johnson.
“The company was reckless and the company totally ignored the real serious risk of permanently injuring women,” said Baldwin.
A Philadelphia jury awarded Ella $57.1 million finding that Ethicon was guilty of negligence and its product was defectively designed.
Ethicon is expected to appeal the case.
“Ethicon is confident in the positive impact our pelvic mesh products have had. The use of mesh to treat stress urinary incontinence is supported by medical experts, medical societies, physicians and regulatory organizations around the world,” said the company in a statement.
“That flies in the face of the evidence that was put in front of the jury in this case,” said Baldwin.
The FDA has received thousands of complaints about pelvic mesh made by a number of different companies and used for several gemological problems.
Ella’s family worries about others struggling, like they do, as they try to move forward.
Major medical groups say there are potential complications with any surgical procedure, but that pelvic mesh is safe and helpful for the majority of patients who have it.
http://philadelphia.cbslocal.com/2017/09/26/ella-ebaugh-johnson-johnson-lawsuit/
-
Expert who quit mesh implant review warns over use
Sep 27, 2017 | BBC Scotland
By Lucy Adams
The expert at the centre of a review group looking at the safety of mesh implants in Scotland has spoken for the first time about why he resigned.
Dr Wael Agur told BBC Scotland he believed patient safety was being put at risk.
He said mesh should only be used in exceptional circumstances due to the risk of "irreversible" damage.
The Scottish government said no evidence had been deleted or hidden from the review group's report.
Transvaginal mesh implants are medical devices used by surgeons to treat pelvic organ prolapse and incontinence in women, conditions that can commonly occur after childbirth.
Over the past 20 years, more than 100,000 women across the UK have had transvaginal mesh implants - including more than 20,000 in Scotland.What's the issue with mesh implants?But some have suffered painful and debilitating complications.
There are more than 400 women currently taking legal action against Scottish health boards and manufacturers as a result of mesh implant surgery.
In 2014, former Scottish Health Secretary Alex Neil called for the suspension of such procedures, and an independent review group was set up to look at safety issues.
Dr Agur, a consultant urogynecologist, was a member of the review group but said he was forced to step down earlier this year after an entire chapter of the final report was removed and put in the appendices.
It followed the resignation of two patient representatives on the group who claimed the report had been "watered down" and that it was ultimately "a whitewash".
At the time, Health Secretary Shona Robison said no evidence would be hidden in the group's final report.
Dr Agur said he reviewed the most up-to-date research in the UK and internationally and concluded that non-mesh surgical procedures were safer, but said that such conclusions were removed or changed.
He told BBC Scotland: "It was so important that we got this right. Not just for women in Scotland but for women around the world. Scotland was the only country where an independent review was running to look at the benefits and risks of these procedures.
"I believe the report has left the door slightly open for some procedures to be performed and that should not have happened."
Dr Agur said he believed mesh use should be avoided in future in all but the rarest circumstances because of the risks of "acute" and "irreversible" damage.
Asked if he believed the final report by the review group was a whitewash, he said: "Whitewash is a political term and I am not a politician. I'm a clinician and a researcher and a surgeon and I can tell you that I looked into the evidence that compares all these procedures and I concluded that they should either not be performed at all or restricted to clearly defined situations where not a single surgeon but a group of surgeons nationally should decide."
Based on the evidence gathered, he said he expected the review group to conclude that mesh use should not continue and that the suspension should remain in place.
He said that ultimately the report gives surgeons in Scotland and globally the impression that its use should continue.'Different format'
On Thursday, Dr Agur will give evidence to the Petitions Committee at the Scottish Parliament.
In his written submission, he stated: "The report did not adequately warn surgeons and patients against the serious risks with the transobturator mesh tape (the type most commonly used in Scotland).
"The report ignored the best evidence on mesh-related adverse events that described the prevalence of a negative outcome to be as frequent as 15% (1 in 7).
"On interpreting the evidence tables comparing safety of surgical procedures, I came to the following conclusions: Non-mesh procedures are safer than mesh procedures for incontinence. Transobturator tape is too risky to be offered, except in very rare circumstances. Prolapse mesh has no benefit and is too risky to be offered."
His submission to MSPs added: "As the chapter was deleted, its evidence did not inform the recommendations of the final report."
Scotland's Chief Medical Officer, Dr Catherine Calderwood, said she had "fully accepted" the recommendations made by the independent review and had been clear that the suspension of the use of mesh implants should remain in place until she was satisfied they had been implemented.
She added: "The cabinet secretary met with the chair of the independent review, who informed us that some evidence has been presented in a different format to that of the interim report, but that no evidence has been deleted or hidden.
"The interim report is available to read on the independent review's website and the final report builds on that.
"The clinician who resigned from the review group drafted an alternative version of one chapter which was not agreed by the rest of the group, but in the interests of transparency was published on the Scottish government website.
"A review is being carried out into the process of the independent Review, which will make recommendations about the conduct of future similar reviews and will report back next year."
http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-scotland-41408704
-
Women have the right to know about injuries of vaginal birth beforehand
Sep 27, 2017 | The Guardian
By Sascha Callaghan and Amy Corderoy
It’s not just the constant pain. After a while, you learn to adjust to that new normal. It’s the feeling that you weren’t warned; that you never gave your consent for the risks you were exposed to.
That is the message coming out of the Senate inquiry into the use of vaginal mesh products to treat women who have vaginal prolapses.
The submissions are heartbreaking. Many are handwritten, intimate portraits of lives interrupted by constant infections and pain, of relationships disrupted.Analysis What does pelvic mesh do and why are women suing over it? – explainerUrogynaecological mesh is used to treat stress incontinence and pelvic organ prolapse – and its use has triggered class actions in the US, UK and Australia
Read more
One woman writes how she never had an orgasm again after her surgery.
Another describes a procedure performed on her: “It was the most painful experience and I screamed very loud and was crying. [The doctor] scolded me and told me I had scared the patients in the waiting room”.
Many say they were never warned of the risks of the mesh, never understood the treatment they were about to undertake.
Despite the clear importance of these stories finally being heard, there is concern in some quarters that speaking out loud about injuries after a vaginal birth is a dangerous thing. In their submission to the senate enquiry, the Australian College of Midwives’ submission warns that coverage of the issue “has increased fear around childbirth”.
“It is important that the issues surrounding the transvaginal mesh implants are separated from the issues surrounding vaginal birth,” they write.
The truth is however, that these injuries and others, such as prolapse, scarring, incontinence, chronic pain, and fistula are all risks of vaginal birth – particularly where complications necessitate the use of instruments such as forceps. The risk of these complications increases with the age of the mother, her BMI, and the size of the baby relative to the mother’s pelvis.
We expect women to be strong enough to run these risks when they give birth, but many clinicians and natural birth advocates seem to imagine that telling women about them beforehand might be too scary for them to handle.
This rhetoric is now so entrenched in health services that official birth policy in NSW emphasises that only one type of birth – vaginal birth – is “normal”. The policy states that “all pregnant women [should be informed] about the benefits of normal birth”, but does not specify that patients must be informed of risks of vaginal births. Many hospitals now aggressively pursue vaginal births, encouraging vaginal births after caesarean section, discouraging the use of effective epidural pain relief and aiming to use alternative interventions such as forceps to ensure babies can be delivered vaginally. All without fully informing patients of the known risks associated with that approach. Clinicians now actively promote the role for forceps in childbirth, even if they do note in their academic research the “trade-offs between risks of maternal and neonatal trauma”. These “trade-offs” include a four-times greater risk of stress incontinence and an eight-times greater risk of prolapse compared to no use of instruments, and a five-times greater risk of facial injury for the baby (compared to the use of a vacuum device). Yet all this is in aid of producing a “normal” birth, so there is apparently no need to ensure informed consent on the woman’s part.
This increasing trend towards paternalism in childbirth is not only disturbing, but it can also be unlawful. In a 2015 UK case, obstetrician Dina McLellan was found to have negligently harmed Nadine Montgomery and her baby because of a failure to inform Montgomery about a substantial risk that her large baby would become stuck in her pelvis during an attempt at vaginal birth. This was despite the fact that Montgomery, who had diabetes, had repeatedly asked about these risks and said she would have elected to have caesarean had she had been properly informed. The obstetrician gave evidence that she did not spend a lot of time, or indeed any time at all, discussing these risks with her patients. This is despite the fact that should a baby become trapped in the mother’s pelvis due to a complication known as shoulder dystocia, highly invasive manipulations are required to free the baby. In this case, this included pressing down on the mother’s pubis with clenched fists, while two midwives forced her legs back; pushing the baby’s head back up into the uterus, so as to be able to perform an emergency caesarean section, forceps, and an attempted symphysiotomy. This is a surgical procedure that involves breaking the pelvis to free the baby.
Despite these known risks, Dr McLellan took the view that if such “small” risks were mentioned “most women will actually say, ‘I’d rather have a caesarean section’”. Dr McLellan felt this was undesirable because “it’s not in the maternal interests for women to have caesarean sections”. For this reason she did not discuss the risks with her patient.
In this case, there were terrible outcomes for mother and baby. But even in the normal run of things, the law is designed to protect a patient’s right to autonomy – the freedom to decide what can be done to their bodies in a medical setting. Healthcare professionals must not only give patients enough information to get consent to a procedure, but enough to ensure that the patient’s right of autonomy, and control over their bodies, is protected. That includes giving information about the risks of having no procedure, as in the case of an attempt at vaginal birth, where known risk factors are present.
Much important work was done by our feminist foremothers in fighting for women to have the right to make choices about their births, to take control of their labours with active, natural births if they want them, and to be free of unnecessary interventions. This shift has been welcomed by many women, and is in line with international trends.
But we cannot lose sight of the fact that the goal of these shifts in practice has been to empower women, and in order to achieve that aim we cannot throw the baby out with the bathwater – so to speak – by deciding that all women have the same priorities and that it is acceptable to hinder informed decision-making in the cause of achieving those priorities.
The fact is that in modern medical practice, we have long let go of keeping the “awful truth” from patients. We let patients decide what is best for them – by informing them of risks as well as benefits, and allowing women to choose which set of risks they are more comfortable taking. Two perfectly well informed, intelligent women may have totally differing opinions about the type of intervention they are comfortable with. One might feel that a vaginal birth is an experience they value highly, and that the surgery involved in a caesarean section (with its associated recovery time, potential for complications, and increasing risk with each additional pregnancy) is something they would like to avoid at almost any cost. Another women may feel her personal circumstances make vaginal delivery unappealing, and believe that if such a delivery needed forceps then it is a risk that she would not be willing to take. Many more will fall somewhere between these two views.
Either way, the days of medical paternalism are over.
Midwives and doctors must ensure women are fully informed, and their wishes known, before the labour, so that they can inform clinical decision-making during it. There is no easy way to give birth to a baby, and most first-time mothers are apprehensive about labour and aware that once it begins you simply cannot have full control over what happens next.
Ensuring women are fully informed should not scare them off vaginal birth, but it will ensure that if something does go wrong they will not feel betrayed by the healthcare system itself.
Sascha Callaghan is a lecturer in health law and bioethics at the University of Sydney. Amy Corderoy is a freelance medical journalist
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2017/sep/27/women-have-the-right-to-know-about-injuries-of-vaginal-birth-beforehand
-
Scotland Calls for International Summit on Mesh Crisis
Sep 26, 2017 | Mesh Medical Device Newsdesk
Mesh Medical Device News Desk, September 26, 2017 ~ Scotland was the first country to call on a ban on the use of polypropylene (PP) transvaginal mesh after hundreds of injured women came forward. It was the first to say NO to an official report. Now the former health secretary is calling for international action.
On Sunday, former Scotland health secretary Alex Neil called the pelvic mesh implant crisis a “worldwide catastrophe” and called for international action and recognition.
Scotland becoming the first country to suspend the use of pelvic mesh implants after testimony to a Scottish Parliament Committee by Scottish Mesh Survivors members and extensive front-page media coverage, primarily by reporter Marion Scott.
Mr. Neil took a stand after meeting with scores of women implanted with PP mesh.
His conclusion, as reported in the Sunday Post:“A global response is required to one of the biggest medical scandals of modern times. Scotland should continue taking the lead on this issue and host an international summit.”
An official report in Scotland has been called a “whitewash” by campaigners with one expert and two activists resigning from the so called independent review.
Among the complaints, all of the so called “experts” had ties to mesh manufacturers. On Thursday, former committee members will explain their concerns to Holyrood’s Public Petitions committee.
Scottish Mesh Surviors’ Elaine Holmes says, “We applaud Mr. Neil. The world is finally waking up to this scandal.”
The Sunday Post reports the creation of an international summit has cross-party support in the Scottish Parliament.
The National Health Service is facing millions in liability as a result of 450 mesh victims filing the largest product liability action in Scottish history.
A petition drive to the Scottish government to keep the mesh ban in place, closed September 1, after calls went out internationally to the mesh-injured community.
Scotland does not have the authority to outright ban mesh. That lies with the MHRA, Scotland’s version of the FDA. It is almost wholly funded by the medical industry many of which make mesh implants, according to the group.
However ,Scotland can continue the suspension for as long as it takes for more awareness to show the dangers. ###
LEARN MORE:
MND, Scottish Mesh Ban Continues with Your Help, July 24, 2017
https://www.meshmedicaldevicenewsdesk.com/scotland-mesh-ban-continues-help/MND, Scotland Calls for Criminal Investigation into Boston Scientific and Counterfeit Mesh Allegations, September 2016
https://www.meshmedicaldevicenewsdesk.com/scotland-calls-criminal-investigation-counterfeit-mesh-allegations-boston-scientific/MND, Pelvic Mesh Procedures Halted in Scotland, June 2016
https://www.meshmedicaldevicenewsdesk.com/pelvic-mesh-implant-procedures-halted-scotland/MND, Scotland Becomes First Country Suspend Use of Pelvic Mesh, June 2014
https://www.meshmedicaldevicenewsdesk.com/breaking-news-scotland-bans-transvaginal-mesh/https://www.meshmedicaldevicenewsdesk.com/scotland-calls-international-summit-mesh-crisis/
-
Sep 26, 2017 | Mesh Medical Device Newsdesk
Mesh Medical Device News Desk, September 26, 2017 reposted from May 15, 2017 ~ Can you change law firms if you are unhappy with your representation? Get your retainer agreement out and look at the fine print is a first place to start.
This article is being reposted because so many of you call MND and complain about your law firm and the lackluster settlement dollars being offered to mesh injured plaintiffs.
When you research whether you can leave your law firm, most references are for attorneys. At least once in a career, a lawyer may want to change firms.
But what if you, the client, are not happy with your representation and want to shop for another law firm to take your case?
Is that allowed?
A TEAM
In an ideal world, you and your law firm form a “team” based on mutual trust and respect. That means you must provide the law firm with the information it asks for and stay in touch if you move. You must always be reachable.
In turn, the law firm should be able to answer your questions and have someone appointed to be your liaison. This should be a paralegal, or someone familiar with the law.
Check out the American Bar Association’s Model Rules of Professional Conduct here.
Your law firm must provide you with your case number and where your case is filed so you can look it up and verify that it actually has been filed.
You editor is hearing lately of cases that were never filed with the court, instead, they were prepared for settlement. What sort of message does that send to the defense side? A case worked for trial indicates resources were put into the merits of the case, one that counsel was prepared to present to a jury. As readers know, those have resulted in multi-million dollar verdicts, with very few exceptions.
LEGAL REFERRAL SERVICES
Is your case with a trial lawyer? Many 800 #’s led the unsuspecting injured plaintiff to a legal referral center that sells or “refers” your case to another firm for a set amount or percentage.
Since one has to be a lawyer to head a legal referral service, you may think you signed up with a law firm (and you did) but they may have had no intention of keeping the case. Unless you know that, you may waste previous time asking the referral service for an update on your case.
Some plaintiffs were promised theirs was a “million dollar case” when they signed up. That is a red flag. No one knows the value of a case.
Mesh News Desk has heard from plaintiffs who only find out years later that the initial referral firm no longer has their case.
This is a formula for disaster.
No communication can mean that cases fall by the wayside and the plaintiff forgets about it and goes on with their life. That’s what happened in the recent story Women Who Are Missing, who had their cases dismissed by the court when both sides failed to communicate with each other.
Is changing law firms even allowed? Remember – Your case belongs to you.
Read the fine print of your firm’s retainer agreement. That may contain language that will guide you if you are not happy with your current representation.
If the law firm wants to end the relationship, the replaced lawyer will file a notice of withdrawal with the court. They must return your original files and papers and property and refund any unused retainer.
Make sure you do not get into a battle over paying them before your files are turned over to the next firm.
The American Bar Association’s Model Rule 1.16(d) (here) says your firm must surrender papers and property as soon as the representation is terminated. There may be a similar rule in your state bar association
If the firm is owed fees, it will file a lien on whatever award you eventually receive from either a jury award or a settlement.
Make sure the fees and costs are “reasonable” and not excessive. Ask for an invoice with details on the expenditure in your case.
If you never receive anything in a settlement, do you still owe that law firm something? It’s in the fine print.
Give careful thought to firing your attorney. Are you on the eve of trial? Has the firm communicated with you but your real frustration is with the industry you are suing? What are you expectations and are they realistic?
That is the million dollar question when it comes to mesh litigation because the dollars being offered by the mesh industry do not consider a lifetime of pain and medical care, loss of consortium, lost wages, medical care mesh-related but that are not revisions, pain and suffering.
So what is realistic?
As yourself, is this firm acting in a professional manner and do they still have your trust?
A sit down meeting to air your grievances may answer your questions. ###
LEARN MORE:
From Martindale-Hubbell, How to fire your attorney here.
https://www.meshmedicaldevicenewsdesk.com/can-change-law-firm/
-
Victim told Transvaginal Mesh would make her “Feel like a 16-year-old Virgin”
Sep 27, 2017 | Lawyers and Settlements.
By Jane Mundy
Sydney, AU An Australian transvaginal mesh inquiry underway involves complaints that would make good copy for a vulgar tabloid. One victim testified how she was told the mesh would make her feel like a “16-year-old virgin”. But if it takes sensational accounts such as these to make more women aware of transvaginal mesh side effects, all the better. These women are heroic for sharing such personal details.
Complaints Harken Back to the Dark Ages
About 800 women in Australia are involved in a transvaginal mesh class action lawsuit against Johnson & Johnson, and 12 of those women testified before a Senate Inquiry in Sydney last week. "When the doctor told me I would no longer be able to have sex with my husband, he said there was more than one way to skin a cat," said victim Gai Thompson, as reported by news.com.au. And a public hearing in Perth included one doctor telling the inquiry that she was “aghast” after hearing that some medical professionals had advised women unable to have vaginal sex due to TVM injuries that “anal sex be used as an alternative”.
Although Australia’s Therapeutic Goods Administration still allows surgeons to implant the mesh, this latest inquiry and class action lawsuit may result in women having an informed option.
Gai Thompson had a Prolift Pelvic Floor Repair System by Johnson & Johnson implant nine years ago to treat pelvic organ prolapse. It has since been taken off the Australian market, but only after the Department of Health asked for more information to be added to the instructions for use of the products, according to SBS News.
Thompson says that transvaginal mesh is still being implanted in women by surgeons in Australia who aren’t being told of the risks. "While I'm speaking to you now I can guarantee there is a woman in a Sydney hospital somewhere having mesh put inside her and not realizing," she told the inquiry. Thompson has yet to find a surgeon willing to remove her mesh implant.Dr Jenny King, director of the Urogynaecological Society of Australasia, told the Australian Inquiry that surgeons did not show caution when using controversial vaginal mesh implants that have destroyed the lives of thousands of women. She stated that those women given the 'magic' procedure had been 'seriously let down'.
Meanwhile, in a recent transvaginal mesh lawsuit trial, a Philadelphia jury ordered Johnson & Johnson and its Ethicon, Inc. subsidiary to pay a Pennsylvania woman more than $57 million in punitive and compensatory damages. Ella Ebaugh, age 51, told the York Daily Record that a lot of days she can’t get out of bed and will struggle with that pain every day for the rest of her life. “I’m just glad Johnson & Johnson is finally getting their hand smacked when it should be,” she said. “They’re doing things seriously hurting and harming women everywhere.”https://www.lawyersandsettlements.com/articles/transvaginal-mesh-tvt-sling/transvaginal-mesh-lawsuit-8-22601.html
-
Sep 26, 2017 | RX Injury Help (blog)
By Sandy Liebhard
Sandy Liebhard is an Senior Partner at Bernstein Liebhard LLP
Ethicon, Inc. has asked a Philadelphia judge to overturn a $57.1 million verdict awarded last month at the conclusion of Pennsylvania’s sixth transvaginal mesh lawsuit trial.
In a brief filed with the Philadelphia Court of Common Pleas on Monday, September 18th, the company argued that Ella Ebaugh waited too long to file her complaint.
“By at least June 2011, plaintiff knew or had reason to know that there was some problem with her mesh,” the company argued in a brief docketed in the Philadelphia County Court of Common Pleas on Monday. “A mesh erosion cannot occur without mesh.”Ethicon Transvaginal Mesh Allegations
Ebaugh, 51, was implanted with Ethicon’s TVT-Secur pelvic mesh implant in 2007 to treat incontinence. She later underwent corrective surgery due to mid-urethral erosion, at which time she was implanted with a different TVT product.
In June 2011, Ebaugh was forced to undergo yet another revision surgery to remove the second implant. However, she continued to experience complications that required her to endure a fifth surgery just last year.
Ebaugh accused Ethicon and its parent company, Johnson & Johnson, of manufacturing a defective product and failing to warn doctors and patients about the risks associated with TVT mesh. Her trial concluded last month in Philadelphia, when she was awarded $7.1 million in compensatory and $50 million in punitive damages.
In its post-trial motion, Ethicon argued that the clock began running on Ebaugh’s claim as early as June 2007, when her first TVT implant failed.
“Pennsylvania law is clear that when a surgical patient knows or has reason to know that there was some problem with the surgery, the statute of limitations begins to run and the patient is obligated to investigate whether he or she has a potential cause of action,” the company said.
Ethicon is also seeking to have the punitive damages reduced, arguing that the amount awarded exceeded a statutory cap which limits punitive awards to five times the amount of compensatory damages. The company also asserted that the evidence presented at trial had not proven that it had engaged in wrongful conduct.Pennsylvania Pelvic Mesh Litigation: Plaintiffs 5, Ethicon 1
Nationwide, Johnson & Johnson and Ethicon have been named a defendant in more than 55,000 transvaginal mesh lawsuits.
The Ebaugh case was the fifth loss for Ethicon and Johnson in the transvaginal mesh mass tort program currently underway in Philadelphia. Four previous juries have awarded plaintiffs compensatory and punitive damages ranging from $2.16 million to $20 million.
Johnson & Johnson and Ethicon won their first and only Pennsylvania case in June. However, that plaintiff was recently granted a motion for a new hearing on damages, after arguing that the verdict was inconsistent with the evidence presented at trial.
https://www.rxinjuryhelp.com/news/2017/09/26/ethicon-seeks-reversal-of-57-million-transvaginal-mesh-lawsuit-verdict-on-statute-of-limitations-grounds/
Client Attorney Privileged/Attorney Work Product/At Request of Counsel
Online Sources
Add recipients
Suggested