Preview Newsletter
Ethicon Media Monitoring 1/8/2018
-
Mesh Trials on the Horizon
Jan 8, 2018 | Mesh Medical Device Newsdesk
2018 promises to see a revival of transvaginal mesh product liability trials around the country. -
Mesh Past and Present
Jan 8, 2018 | Mesh Medical Device Newsdesk
So the MDL (multidistrict litigation) was established by the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation in Miami January 2012. Today there are more than 104,000 defective product, also known as product liability cases filed in the MDL federal court in Charleston, WV. -
CVN's Top 10 Most Impressive Plaintiff Verdicts of 2017
Jan 5, 2018 | CVN
By David Siegel
2017 was a busy year for Courtroom View Network! As the only news organization in the country focused on webcasting high-stakes civil trials, CVN covered everything from bellwether product liability trials, to medical malpractice trials, to complex commercial trials, and along the way filmed some of the nation’s top trial attorneys in action, in their element, in front of a real live jury. -
Legal battle brews after women claim faults with birth control implant left them in agony
Jan 8, 2018 | Sunday Herald
By Sandra Dick
... The issue has been likened to the mesh implant scandal, in which devices used to treat pelvic organ prolapse and incontinence after childbirth were linked with crippling pain and in some cases life-changing side effects. -
'I wished I was dead' Women who had 'lives ruined' by contraceptive device set to sue
Jan 7, 2018 | Daily Record
By Norman Silvester
... Bruce said the complaints about Essure are similar to those of women who had problems with mesh implants which are used to treat pelvic organ prolapse and incontinence after childbirth. -
Hernia Mesh Lawsuits Mount Against C.R. Bard, Davol
Jan 5, 2018 | RX Injury Help
By Sandy Liebhard
C.R. Bard, Inc. and Davol, Inc. continue to face a growing number of hernia mesh lawsuits in courts throughout the United States, with recent filings in Louisiana and Mississippi.Mississippi Plaintiff Claims Bard Ventralex Patch Incompatible with Human Tissue
Client Attorney Privileged/Attorney Work Product/At Request of Counsel
Online Sources
-
Jan 8, 2018 | Mesh Medical Device Newsdesk
Mesh Medical Device News Desk, January 7, 2018~ 2018 promises to see a revival of transvaginal mesh product liability trials around the country. A number of cases are set to go before a jury in the coming months in New Jersey, Philadelphia and even Charleston, WV, where the multidistrict litigation is centered with more than 104,000 cases filed.
Mesh News Desk will attempt to keep you up-to-date on the trials, however if anyone wants to attend and send updates to MND, it would be much appreciated.
In Charleston, WV expect May 15, 2018 as the trial date for the Wave 7 Ethicon cases and in June, Wave 6 of the Bard cases will be set for trial.
NEW JERSEY
Prolift, MedTech Marketing
The New Jersey law firm of Mazie Slater Katz & Freeman, will bring the defective product trial of Mary and Thomas McGinniss v. Bard to trial in Bergen Co. New Jersey on Monday, March 19. Docket No. L-017543-14.
There are 154 product liability cases naming C.R. Bard in this venue. See the state cases consolidated in New Jersey here.
There are 9,093 cases in the same court naming Ethicon (Johnson & Johnson). See the list here.
Opening statements will be heard in Bergen County before Judge Rachelle Harz.
Defendant C.R. Bard has added attorneys Lori Cohen (Greenberg Traurig), Marcella Duca, Melissa Gist and Marilyn Moberg (Reed Smith) to its team. Cohen lost the first MDL case against Bard (Cisson) in August 2013 in the Charleston, WV court to attorney Henry Garrard.
New Jersey cases only allow you to receive the docket here. You must request by mail to receive documents if you are not an attorney.
Philadelphia Court of Common Pleas, Philadelphia Co.~ Patricia Blockus et al vs Ethicon Women’s Health and Urology, was reset from November to January 8, 2018.
Blockus is from Hunlock Creek, Pennsylvania, where she lives with her husband, Eugene. The defendant corporations are Ethicon, American Medical Systems, Boston Scientific and CR Bard Inc. as well as Sofradim Production SAS, Tissue Science Laboratories Limited, Secant Medical and Prodesco, Inc. The trial was moved from June 19, 2017 and the Case No. is 1307-00707 before Judge Arnold New.
See the case list here.
She was implanted with a Prolift pelvic organ prolapse (POP) mesh March 19, 2007, and a PelviSoft Acellular Collagen BioMesh made by Bard here, July 28, 2008, both at Gesinger Medical Center in Danville, PA to treat pelvic organ prolapse. The implant surgeon is Barbara Plucknett, MD. Ms. Blockus underwent one explant surgery, July 28, 2008 by Dr. Mitesh Parekh, MD.
Bard claims its PelviSoft is highly effective for posterior vaginal wall defects and is “ideal for use in repairing rectocele and cystocele prolapse.” It was developed after Pelvicol, another biomesh, made by C.R. Bard in Covington, Georgia. The promotional material does not say where the “natural” mesh is derived but further research finds it is made from porcine (pig) dermis or skin.
*Note* – See this Porcine dermis study, randomized control trial, with 12 month followup. Using a cure definition as anatomic with no pelvic organ prolapse at Stage 2 or greater. 57 patients. Published in Obstetrics and Gynecology January 2013 by Patrick Culligan MD, Division of Urogynecology Atlantic Health System, Morristown, NJ. See Clinical Trials here.
The complaint states negligence, manufacturing defect, failure to warn, defective product, design defect and common law fraud, the first among 16 claims. The Blockus family asks for punitive damages.
BLOCKUS MOTIONS FILED
On May 5, 2017, Johnson & Johnson/ Ethicon filed motions to preclude the testimony of expert Peggy Pence, Ph.D., Uwe Klinge, M.D., Ph.D and Daniel Elliott, M.D..
This was done under Pennsylvania Rule of Evidence 702, known as the Frye Motion. (Frye v. United States, 293). Ethicon had filed almost identical Frye motions to preclude testimony in the Hammons case against Ethicon.
With Peggy Pence, for example, Pence is a regulatory expert with more than 40 years experience in the regulation of medical devices. Dr. Pence has testified that the Prolift was misbranded when brought to market because the manufacturer made false and misleading statements.
Prolift actually was marketed by Ethicon beginning in March 2005, prior to having any FDA clearance at all. It was only when Prolift M+ was submitted for FDA clearance did the FDA even know the existence of Prolift. Then, and only then, did the FDA issue it clearance to market, three years after it was already being sold!
Dr. Uwe Klinge is a biomaterials scientist who collects explanted hernia mesh and examines its properties. Ethicon wants to prevent him from testifying about Ethicon’s purported knowledge and state of mind, about degradation of mesh and particle loss.
Ethicon wants to exclude the testimony of Dr. Daniel Elliott, who will say that Prolift is defective and that Ethicon had a duty as a medical device manufacturer to make a safe and effective product.
The Ethicon motion aims to exclude Bruce Rozenszweig, MD as an expert witness. There is a defense motion in limine to eliminate the Chevron MSDS and any discussion of Johnson & Johnson shredding of documents pertaining to its transvaginal mesh production. See MND story here.
There is a defense motion to eliminate discussions heard in the Ethicon/Budke wrongful death trial and the Linda Gross Prolift trial in New Jersey from 2013.
A Motion for Summary judgment filed by Ethicon October 6, cites that Ms. Blockus allegedly filed outside of her statute of limitation. Ms. Blockus should have been aware of her mesh injury July 2008 and October 2010 and/or should have been aware of the 2008 and 2011 FDA Public Health Notices.
See Blockus Def Ethicon Motion for Summary Judgement, Oct, 2017
Ms. Blockus said she was not aware her injuries might be linked to mesh until she saw television commercials after which she filed her lawsuit.
The defendant says “a plaintiff cannot just sit back and wait to see a lawyer television advertisement before filing suit when there is similar, if not more detailed, information from a government source regarding a potential causal connection between a product and certain symptoms that has been accessible and available to the public for 5 years.”
Between March 2007 and November 2011 she says she experienced ongoing pain and urinary symptoms, four mesh erosions and underwent four surgical procedures to correct the erosions. She also had an additional prolapse device implanted.
ALSO IN PHILADELPHIA
Also listed for trial in the Philadelphia court is Hespe v Boston Scientific, Trial date certain – January 22, 2018. Case No. 130700947
Deimler vs. Ethicon Women’s Health and Urology, Trial date certain – May 14, 2018, Case No. 13070136
There are 131 records found waiting for trial in this pelvic mesh mass tort in Philadelphia. ###
https://www.meshmedicaldevicenewsdesk.com/mesh-trials-horizon/
-
Jan 8, 2018 | Mesh Medical Device Newsdesk
Mesh Medical Device News Desk, January 7, 2018 ~ So the MDL (multidistrict litigation) was established by the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation in Miami January 2012. Today there are more than 104,000 defective product, also known as product liability cases filed in the MDL federal court in Charleston, WV.
Here is a brief summary of where we are today.
Johnson & Johnson has the largest number of cases in the MDL, more than 39,000 recently, followed by Boston Scientific, more than 25,000, then AMS (American Medical Systems) more than 21,000, then C.R. Bard 16,000, followed by Coloplast, Cook and Neomedic.
You can go to Sodistrictofwv.com and pull up the most current numbers easily by clicking on the manufacturer and then on numerical list of cases. You can also put your name in the search bar to ull up your case and case number. You will need a Pacer account to read the complaint.
Cases are still being filed, for example, from August to November 2017 there were nearly 800 cases added. That’s because pelvic mesh is still being used.
In fact, the American Urogynecologic Society (AUGS)still calls incontinence mesh the “Gold Standard” and touts its use. That is difficult to believe since the majority of cases filed calling the implants defective, are for “slings” another word for incontinence mesh.
The larger mesh for pelvic organ prolapse (POP) has met a different fate. J&J took its Prolift off the market and most manufacturers quietly discontinued their POP meshes. They were causing devastating problems and are nearly impossible to remove.
In January 2016, the FDA decided to reclassify POP mesh as Class III or High Risk, which is probably where it should have been in the first place, not moderate risk. The FDA gave manufactures 30 months to prove the safety and efficacy or stop selling POP mesh. That takes us to the fall of 2019. The thought is that’s the end of POP mesh because it really can’t be proven problem free, even in the most experienced hands.
As you probably know, most medical devices do not go through the same scrutiny as drugs before cleared for sale. The FDA simply requires paperwork stating that the medical device is the “substantial equivalent” to one already in commerce. There are no requirements for clinical trials and years of study to prove safety and efficacy. In essence, the FDA is allowing the manufacturers to regulate themselves.
As the FDA found out in 2008 when it issued its first warning, there were thousands of complaints of injury being reported to the antiquated FDA site to register complaints- called the MAUDE database, which would scare away anyone. You need to know the regulatory language and most people find it unusable. Three years later, the FDA issued a second public health notification that complications were “not rare” reversing itself on the 2008 warning.
Other than that, the FDA did nothing except hold an expert panel in September 2011 that concluded POP mesh was a problem but slings were not. It took until 2016 for the FDA to reclassify POP mesh as high risk or Class III and even then, the agency gave manufacturers the benefit by allowing 30 months for the stuff to remain on the shelves and presumably used.
The Institute of Medicine, in a report, said the FDA clearance requiring only the Substantial equivalence test, is antiquated and should be abolished.
Trials have proven that the mesh is defective, that the warnings were inadequate and that the manufacturers violated their warranty and in some cases, state consumer laws.
We also have thousands of people in New Jersey, Bergen Co who are lined up for lawsuits naming CR Bard and Ethicon as well as cases in Los Angeles naming Boston Scientific and more than 100 in Philadelphia against defendant Ethicon and Boston Scientific.
Here is a list of the cases so far.
Meshes found defective in a court of law are still on the market and the predicate device remains, even when it is removed from the market.
It’s impossible to know how many people have died from mesh implants. Hernia mesh, made from the same polypropylene, is not looked at as a cause of death even when there is a colon nick and sepsis results. Look up hernia death in the FDA MAUDE database and you will see numerous reports of sepsis.
Often the infection finally undermines the immune system and kills a person. Again, mesh is not mentioned because no one is looking at that as a cause of death, not yet anyway.
UCLA is doing data gathering on autoimmune reactions to mesh, which it seems to incite in some people. The polypropylene mesh seems to hold onto bacterial contamination, incites a foreign body reaction and can create a biofilm colony using the mesh as a host. Many women report additional autoimmune complications to their pain of fibromyalgia, brain fog, rashes etc….
The MDL system has resulted in a few verdicts that are resulting in settlements by manufacturers, but the amount offered isgenerally very low and law firms are taking up to 40% of any settlement dollars. Some women are ultimately left with less than the law firm, after 40% and expenses are subtracted and she is loaded with liens and medical expenses.
Meshes found defective in a court of law are still on the market and the predicate device remains, even when it is removed from the market. ###
https://www.meshmedicaldevicenewsdesk.com/mesh-past-present/
-
CVN's Top 10 Most Impressive Plaintiff Verdicts of 2017
Jan 5, 2018 | CVN
By David Siegel
2017 was a busy year for Courtroom View Network! As the only news organization in the country focused on webcasting high-stakes civil trials, CVN covered everything from bellwether product liability trials, to medical malpractice trials, to complex commercial trials, and along the way filmed some of the nation’s top trial attorneys in action, in their element, in front of a real live jury.
We also launched our exciting new "CVN Essentials" product, offering specially curated content like our popular "Trial in 20 Minutes" video summaries.
To start off the new year, here are our picks from those trials for the top 10 most impressive plaintiffs verdicts of 2017. These aren’t ranked solely by amount awarded. We also took into consideration the facts of the case, the parties and attorneys involved, and the potential broader impact of the verdict.
Want to see the full trial? You can get access to high-quality, gavel-to-gavel video of a ALL of these trials and many more in CVN’s one-of-a-kind trial video archive by becoming a CVN subscriber.
Also make sure to check out our picks for top 10 most impressive defense verdicts of 2017, coming soon!
***
#1: Echeverria v. Johnson & Johnson
$417 million verdict in first ovarian cancer talc trial in California
Plaintiff attorneys: Allen Smith (pictured), (The Smith Law Firm) Mark Robinson, Scot Wilson, (Robinson Calcagnie) David Dearing (Beasley Allen Law Firm) Michelle Parfitt (Ashcraft & Gerel LLP)
Link to video of the trial:
https://cvn.com/proceedings/johnson-johnson-talcum-powder-cases-trial-2017-07-10
Why it made the list:
By the time Eva Echeverria’s case against Johnson & Johnson went to trial in July, juries in St. Louis, Missouri had already hit the company with headline-grabbing verdicts totaling more than $300 million in lawsuits alleging that talc-based products like Johnson’s Baby Powder and Shower to Shower cause ovarian cancer.
The $347 million in punitive damages alone awarded to Echeverria surpassed all the previous ovarian cancer talc verdicts combined, and the total award of $417 million made it one of the largest plaintiff verdicts in the country last year.
Besides the dollar amount, the verdict showed massive awards in ovarian talc cases weren’t a phenomenon specific to St. Louis. The trial also featured star defense attorney Bart Williams of Proskauer Rose LLP, who earlier that year led the team that secured J&J’s only defense win in an ovarian cancer talc case in St. Louis.
Although J&J prevailed on a motion for a new trial (a decision the plaintiffs have appealed), the outcome still ranks at the top of our list of most impressive verdicts in 2017.
***
#2: Hrymoc v. Ethicon
$15 million verdict in the second pelvic mesh trial in New Jersey
Plaintiff attorneys: Adam Slater (pictured), David Mazie (Mazie Slater Katz & Freeman)
Link to video of the trial:
https://cvn.com/proceedings/hrymoc-v-ethicon-trial-2017-11-27
Why it made the list:
New Jersey, home of Ethicon’s parent company Johnson & Johnson, is one of the largest hubs in the country for lawsuits involving transvaginal pelvic mesh implants. However as of last December, only one case out of thousands pending had actually gone to trial in New Jersey, and that was back in 2013.
In the current case, plaintiff Elizabeth Hrymoc claimed Ethicon’s Prolift and TVT-O implants left her in constant pain and can’t be fully removed despite numerous surgeries. The $15 million that jurors awarded to Hrymoc and her husband, which includes $10 million in punitive damages, demonstrated that the 2013 verdict wasn’t a one-off. Notably, Mazie Slater Katz & Freeman represented plaintiffs in both trials.
Mesh manufacturers, including Ethicon, struck numerous mass settlements in recent years, but a second trial victory in Johnson & Johnson’s backyard could mean that more women will opt out of those agreements and pursue trials.
Ethicon vowed to appeal the jury’s decision, however a second win in a pelvic mesh case in a jurisdiction as significant as New Jersey state court makes this the second most impressive plaintiff verdict that CVN covered in 2017.
***
#3: Hilario Cruz, et al. v. Nissan North America
$25 million verdict over faulty brakes that caused wrongful manslaughter charge
Plaintiff attorneys: Brett Turnbull, Ryan Lutz, Jerome Tapley (Cory Watson Attorneys) Kirk Wolden (Carter Wolden Curtis LLP) Paul Kiesel, pictured (Kiesel Law LLP)
Link to video of the trial:
https://cvn.com/proceedings/araceli-mendez-et-al-v-nissan-north-america-et-al-trial-2017-06-20
Why it made the list:
When plaintiff Hilario Cruz first filed a lawsuit over the vehicular collision that took the life of his two children and their mother, he sued the driver of the Infiniti SUV that slammed into their car, 74-year-old Solomon Mathenge. Mathenge was later charged with vehicular manslaughter.
Mathenge maintained that the brakes on his vehicle failed, and after prosecutors learned that the same defect Mathenge alleged also served as the basis for a class action lawsuit against Nissan, which manufactures the Infiniti line, they dropped the charges. Cruz then sued Nissan with Mathenge as a co-plaintiff.
The litigation culminated in a month-long trial this summer in Los Angeles that featured the unusual circumstance of both sides involved in a two-vehicle collision suing an automobile manufacturer together at the same trial.
Nissan defended the case vigorously, claiming Mathenge caused the crash by hitting the gas pedal instead of the brake and bringing in a team of trial aces from the powerhouse firm Bowman & Brooke. Despite that top shelf defense effort, the jury awarded $14 million to Cruz, $7.4 million to one of his surviving daughters, and $3.5 million to Mathenge.
***
#4: Lois Slemp v. Johnson & Johnson, et al.
$110 million verdict in St. Louis ovarian cancer talc trial
Plaintiff attorneys: Allen Smith, pictured (The Smith Law Firm) Ted Meadows, Danielle Mason, David Dearing (Beasley Allen Law Firm)
Link to video of the trial:
https://cvn.com/proceedings/valerie-swann-et-al-v-johnson-johnson-et-al-trial-2017-04-10
Why it made the list:
Before the Echeverria verdict in California, the $110 million (consisting mostly of punitive damages) awarded to 62-year-old Lois Slemp was the largest verdict to date after five previous ovarian cancer talc trials in St. Louis.
The verdict is notable because it came on the heels of J&J’s first trial victory in an ovarian cancer talc trial in St. Louis, and also because a jury for the first time assigned liability to J&J’s talc supplier, Imerys Talc America, albeit only one percent. Previous juries in St. Louis cleared Imerys, and the company prevailed on a pretrial summary judgment motion in the Echeverria case in California.
So far the verdict has fared better post-trial than Echeverria’s. In November the trial judge upheld the verdict, finding that Slemp, a Virginia resident, could sue J&J in Missouri despite the U.S. Supreme Court’s recent decision limiting the ability of plaintiffs to file lawsuits outside of the states where they live.
The trial featured the same lead attorneys as the Echeverria case, absent the local California counsel, making The Smith Law Firm and Beasley Allen Law Firm the only two firms to make two separate appearances each on our 2017 list of most impressive plaintiff verdicts.
***
#5: Trabue v. Atlanta Women’s Specialists LLC
$45.8 million verdict awarded after mother suffered brain damage following a C-section
Plaintiff attorneys: William Stone (pictured), Ryals Stone, James Stone, Michael Regas (Stone Law Group Trial Lawyers LLC)
Link to video of the trial:
https://cvn.com/proceedings/trabue-v-atlanta-womens-specialists-other-2017-02-06
Why it made the list:
Plaintiff verdicts in medical malpractice cases are extremely difficult to achieve. Jurors often defer to the split second decisions made by medical professionals in crisis situations, and defense attorneys frequently and successfully argue that a patient can have an unfortunate outcome even with treatment that meets the standard of care.
To overcome that, plaintiff attorney William Stone took a decidedly hands-on and low-tech approach to explaining to an Atlanta jury medical events that he claimed caused Elizabeth Trabue to suffer a heart attack and severe brain damage after giving birth via C-section.
Stone argued that physicians failed to properly treat her fluid overload after childbirth, which caused a pulmonary edema that stopped her heart. During his opening statement, he poured bottles of water into a bucket each time Trabue’s records showed that she received additional IV fluids. The water then overflowed into a larger bucket, which Stone said represented Trabue’s lungs.
Stone told CVN he felt the demonstration had a “visceral” impact on the jurors, who delivered the largest medical malpractice verdict that CVN covered in 2017
“What we’re talking about here in this case is not rocket science,” he said.
***
#6: Wallace v. Philip Morris USA
$36 million “Engle progeny” tobacco verdict in Florida, the largest of 2017
Plaintiff attorneys: Gary Paige, pictured (Gordon & Doner PA), Randy Rosenblum (Dolan Dobrinsky Rosenblum LLP)
Link to video of the trial:
https://cvn.com/proceedings/wallace-v-philip-morris-trial-2017-10-02
Why it made the list:
In 2017 CVN continued our industry-leading coverage of the so-called “Engle progeny” lawsuits against the major tobacco companies that have been slowly winding their way through Florida’s courts for years. We covered almost every Engle case that went to trial.
The largest verdict among those was the $36 million awarded to to the family of a smoker who died from lung cancer supposedly caused by a sweeping conspiracy to hide the dangers of cigarettes.
Besides the amount, the verdict stands out because jurors hit both defendants, Philip Morris and RJ Reynolds, with punitive damage awards of $16 million and $8 million, respectively.
The verdict marks a repeat performance for Gary Paige, who also notched the largest CVN-covered Engle award in 2016.
***
#7: Maria Gonzalez v. Kaiser Foundation Health Plan, Inc.
$492k awarded to fired medical assistant in disability discrimination lawsuit
Plaintiff attorneys: David deRubertis, pictured (deRubertis Law Firm), Aaron Olsen, Alreen Haeggquist (Zeldes Haeggquist & Eck LLP)
Link to video of the trial:
https://cvn.com/proceedings/maria-t-gonzalez-v-kaiser-foundation-health-plan-inc-trial-2017-02-21
Why it made the list:
At first glance an award of less than $500k may seem smaller than expected for this list, but this lengthy disability discrimination trial in San Diego featured a number of notable elements that earned it a slot amongst CVN’s most impressive plaintiff verdicts of 2017.
Maria Gonzales, a former medical assistant, accused Kaiser of illegally firing her to avoid costly medical treatment for her disabled son, who was covered under her healthcare plan. The case stands out from standard disability discrimination lawsuits for being a so-called “association case” meaning the plaintiff isn’t disabled. Trials in those types of cases are comparatively rare.
The trial took two weeks to complete, and the award ended up far surpassing Kaiser’s highest settlement offer of $15k.
***
#8: Williams v. St. Francis Hospital
Hospital hit with $26 million verdict, agrees to pay judgment in full without an appeal
Plaintiff attorney: Lloyd Bell (Bell Law Firm)
Link to video of the trial:
https://cvn.com/proceedings/williams-v-tidwell-et-al-trial
Why it made the list:
A multi-million jury verdict in a complex civil case usually portends a grueling appeals process. When the award gets as high as $26 million in a medical malpractice case, you’d almost certainly expect an insurance carrier to try to get it thrown out, or at the very least reduced.
That wasn’t the case at a medical malpractice trial last November in Muscogee County, Georgia, where a hospital agreed to waive any appeal and pay out a $26 million verdict in full, provided plaintiff attorney Lloyd Bell agreed to drop a motion for attorney fees.
Jurors concluded a St. Francis Hospital staff physician failed to properly treat a woman for a post-operative neck hematoma, or blood clot, which closed off her trachea, and ultimately helped starve her brain of oxygen.
The hospital’s highest settlement offer topped out at $5 million.
***
#9: Cobb v. County of Los Angeles
$10.8 million verdict more than twice county’s highest settlement offer
Plaintiff attorney: Steve Vartazarian (The Vartazarian Law Firm)
Link to video of the trial:
https://cvn.com/proceedings/james-cobb-v-county-of-los-angeles-trial-2017-07-18
Why it made the list:
James Cobb sued Los Angeles County after an employee at a county hospital ran over his legs with a forklift. Just before the trial began, the county made a $1.5 million settlement offer.
Cobb’s attorney Steve Vartazarian rejected the offer, and the case went to trial. During the trial, Vartazarian brought in a near life-size photograph of the forklift that had to be held up by two assistants as Vartazarian, bent over at the waist, demonstrated how the vehicle hit his client.
The presentation was effective enough that during jury deliberations the county upped its settlement offer to $5 million. Vartazarian again rejected it, and the jury eventually awarded Cobb $10.8 million.
Afterwards, Vartazarian told CVN that the county should have accepted the $3 million settlement demand he made shortly after filing the case along with a mid-trial offer Vartazarian made to implement a “high/low” agreement that would set a floor and cap on potential damages, even if the jury agreed to award a higher or lower amount.
“They messed with the wrong trial attorney, and they got popped,” Vartazarian said.
***
#10: Richards v. Total Transportation of Mississippi
$15 million awarded to woman who suffered brain injury in collision with tractor trailer
Plaintiff attorneys: Robert Cheeley, pictured (Cheeley Law Group), Billy Jones (Jones Osteen & Jones)
Link to video of the trial:
https://cvn.com/proceedings/richards-v-total-transportation-of-mississippi-llc-et-al-trial-2017-01-17
Why it made the list:
Last January jurors in Pembroke, Georgia awarded $15 million in compensatory damages to Megan Richards for the injuries she suffered in the 2015 trucking crash that killed five of her Georgia Southern University classmates.
Richards was injured when a tractor trailer driven at highway speed by John Wayne Johnson drove over the top of a Toyota Corolla carrying three Georgia Southern students before it struck a Ford Escape carrying Richards and three other classmates. The cars had been sitting in traffic stopped because of an earlier accident.
The verdict comes despite a high-powered defense that featured two heavyweight national firms, Weinberg Wheeler Hudgins Gunn & Dial and Hawkins Parnell Thackston & Young, which has 10 offices throughout the United States.
Notably, the jury determined the truck driver’s actions showed conduct potentially warranting the imposition of punitive damages. However, Bryan County Superior Court Judge Charles Paul Rose told jurors the parties' attorneys agreed to accept the award "as-is" without a determination of punitives.
http://blog.cvn.com/cvns-top-10-most-impressive-plaintiff-verdicts-of-2017
-
Legal battle brews after women claim faults with birth control implant left them in agony
Jan 8, 2018 | Sunday Herald
By Sandra Dick
Women who claim a contraceptive device left them with crippling side effects are preparing for a Court of Session case which if successful could cost Scottish health boards millions of pounds in compensation.
A group of six women who received Essure implants made by German pharmaceutical giants Bayer say the device left them in pain, suffering bloating, bleeding and infections.
According to the Sunday Mail the women have also reported a string of mental health problems including mood swings and depression, and argue that the implant has made sex either painful or impossible.
Now lawyers acting for the group, personal injury specialists Thompsons in Glasgow, say they have been instructed to move on lodging a case at the Court of Session against manufacturers Bayer.
Similar actions in the US have cost the firm more than £300 million in compensation and costs.
The six Scots are aged between 35 to 50 and are said to live in the central belt, including two in Glasgow. It’s not known which health boards carried out the implant procedures.
One woman described the procedure to fit the device was “barbaric”, adding: “At one point, I wished I was dead. They then told me that only the first part of the device had gone in and not the second.”
They are expected to decide individually whether to pursue cases against the NHS board where the device was fitted for allegedly failing to make them aware of the risks.
The implant is a titanium coil that is placed in the fallopian tubes. It causes inflammation and triggers scar tissue to grow and block off the tubes, preventing eggs from reaching the womb.
While fitting the device takes around 30 minutes without the need for surgery, removal is more complex and in some cases has resulted in women having to undergo a hysterectomy.
It was offered to around 1500 women a year in the UK as a permanent sterilisation method. Around 2000 women in Scotland are thought to have been fitted with the device.
Bayer asked UK hospitals to stop using it in September last year and suspended sales of the implants in the EU. It insisted the suspension was temporary and the implants are safe, however rising numbers of women worldwide have claimed they have suffered a range of side effects and complications.
Solicitor Lindsay Bruce, who is acting for the women, told the Sunday Mail there are concerns NHS Scotland did not properly examine the suitability of the implant before its use.
“These women have described the pain when the devices are being inserted as barbaric. There was no pain relief, only a mild sedative at the time.
“I’m concerned that these devices were not fitted in the best interests of the patient.
“Given what we now know, I’m concerned the women were not offered other alternatives that are available.
“I’m also concerned that not enough advice or counselling was given prior to having the devices inserted.
“They were never told about the potential problems and dangers.”
Bruce added: “The six women tell almost identical stories about their painful experiences with Essure, even though they did not know each other. The side-effects have also taken a toll on their relationships and working lives. They’re in constant pain.
“When they went to their GPs about the pain, they were told it would settle down, which is not the case.”
More than 750,000 women have been fitted with the device worldwide. An estimated that 35,000 patients around the world have complained of side-effects, almost half of them in the US. The issue has been likened to the mesh implant scandal, in which devices used to treat pelvic organ prolapse and incontinence after childbirth were linked with crippling pain and in some cases life-changing side effects.
Bayer defended the implants and insisted the decision to suspend sales were for commercial reasons.
A company statement added: “Bayer has made the commercial decision to voluntarily discontinue the sales and distribution of Essure in all countries except the USA. This decision is not related to any product safety or quality issues and, according to our scientific assessment, the favourable benefit-risk profile of Essure remains unchanged.
“We would like to reassure women who use Essure as their form of contraception and their healthcare professionals that they should have no concerns based on this purely commercial decision.”
A Scottish Government spokeswoman said anyone with concerns should speak to their GP or healthcare professional.
http://www.heraldscotland.com/news/15812656.Women_set_to_sue_amid_claims_they_were_given_faulty_birth_control_implant/
-
'I wished I was dead' Women who had 'lives ruined' by contraceptive device set to sue
Jan 7, 2018 | Daily Record
By Norman Silvester
Women in Scotland claim to have been blighted by constant pain, bloating, bleeding and infections.
Health boards face being sued by women who say their lives have been ruined by a contraceptive device fitted at Scottish hospitals.
Lawyers for the group say their clients have been left with crippling side-effects since they received Essure implants made by German pharmaceutical giants Bayer.
Each of the six women claim they have been blighted by constant pain, bloating, bleeding and infections.
They have reported mental health problems including depression and mood swings.
The implant has also made sex either painful or impossible.
In other cases, the device has become dislodged and punctured the bladder and the bowel causing additional pain.
One woman described the procedure as “barbaric”, adding: “At one point, I wished I was dead. They then told me that only the first part of the device had gone in and not the second.”
Now the group plan to raise an action at the Court of Session in Edinburgh against Bayer.
Similar actions in the US have resulted in more than £300million in compensation payouts from the firm.
Each of the Scots women will decide whether they want to sue the NHS board where the device was fitted for allegedly failing to make them aware of the potential dangers.
Personal injury specialists Thompsons in Glasgow have been instructed by the group who contacted the law firm individually.
The women are aged 35 to 50 and live in the central belt, including two in Glasgow.
Around 2000 women in Scotland are thought to have been fitted with Essure, though no official figures are available.
Solicitor Lindsay Bruce, who is acting for the women, said there are concerns NHS Scotland did not properly examine the suitability of the implant before its use.
She added: “These women have described the pain when the devices are being inserted as barbaric. There was no pain relief, only a mild sedative at the time.
“I’m concerned that these devices were not fitted in the best interests of the patient.
“Given what we now know, I’m concerned the women were not offered other alternatives that are available.
“I’m also concerned that not enough advice or counselling was given prior to having the devices inserted.
“They were never told about the potential problems and dangers.”One Mum's Essure story
A mum yesterday told how she opted for an Essure implant after seeing it on the NHS website.
It was the start of a nightmare that would see her trapped in pain and she eventually begged to have it removed.
The woman, from Glasgow, had the Bayer contraceptive fitted at the city’s Stobhill Hospital in December 2015.
And the 48-year-old recalled how the agony of having the device inserted was so severe that she fainted.
The woman, who works in publishing, has suffered on a daily basis and fears she was also affected by post-traumatic stress disorder because of the ordeal.
The woman, who asked not to be named, added: “I read about Essure on the NHS website.
“I’m taking this matter to court because I want to challenge both the NHS and Bayer.
“Both have questions to answer. The female consultant thought she’d fitted the device wrongly and wanted to do it again.
“I refused. The pain was worse than childbirth but I didn’t get any relief because they said it wasn’t part of the protocol.
“I could feel every millimetre of the device passing through my womb into my fallopian tube.”
The mother of two was put in a recovery room for an hour because she felt so poorly.
She added: “It was really tortuous and utterly barbaric.
“At one point I wished I was dead.
“They then told me that only the first part of the device had gone in and not the second. I had a lot of pain afterwards, not just in my stomach but also my thigh.
“After a couple of weeks I tried to have intercourse with my husband and it was very painful.
“I started suffering what can only be described as post-traumatic stress disorder.
“I kept bursting into tears uncontrollably, it was causing me so much pain and discomfort.
“The pain was with me first thing in the morning and last thing at night.”
The woman, whose children are aged seven and five, then had an operation in March 2016 to remove her fallopian tubes and the Essure implants.
It was then that she realised they had been inserted correctly.
After the operation, she developed an infection and ended up taking 60 antibiotics a day, which then caused bloating and other side-effects.
She added: “I was very unwell because of the infection and I’m still suffering to this day.
“I couldn’t work or play with my kids at one point.
“It’s awful that women have to go through this.
“I’m still on painkillers and have to use herbal remedies.
“I’ve been left with reduced bladder capacity and I also went straight into the menopause and suffered all the symptoms that went with that.
“It has affected my life in a big way.
“I fear that I am always going to be in pain as a result of Essure.”
Surgery is normally needed to remove the contraceptive which in some cases can result in a hysterectomy.
Essure was designed as an alternative to sterilization.
The procedure involves inserting tiny coils into the fallopian tubes and takes less than 30 minutes without surgery.
A flexible metal and plastic spring irritates the lining and causes scar tissue which permanently blocks the tube.
Bruce added: “The six women tell almost identical stories about their painful experiences with Essure, even though they did not know each other. The side-effects have also taken a toll on their relationships and working lives. They’re in constant pain.
“When they went to their GPs about the pain, they were told it would settle down, which is not the case.”
The sale of the Essure implants in Britain and the EU was suspended last September by Bayer. It is also no longer used in Australia, Canada and Brazil.
More than 750,000 women have been fitted with the device worldwide.
It’s estimated that 35,000 patients have complained of side-effects, with almost half of them in the US. America’s Food and Drug Administration have received around 15,000 reports of women
experiencing problems with Essure.Around 10,500 women who have used Essure in the US are said to have filed lawsuits against Bayer.
The firm are also said to have paid out around £320million in compensation and legal costs to patients. The device is still on the market there despite the problems.
Enviromental activist Erin Brockovich is among those who have campaigned against the product in America.
She studied law to win a mulit-million-pound lawsuit against the Pacific Gas and Electric Company over contaminated water in 1993.
Bruce added: “The aim of this contraceptive was to give women a relaxed and comfortable sex life without the risk of pregnancy. Instead, it has ruined their sex lives. I would like to know what checks, if any, were done on the safety of this device.
“Did The NHS just take Bayer’s word at face value?”
A investigation by the BBC’s Victoria Derbyshire show last year also found evidence of problems.
Laura Linkson, who had the procedure in 2013, said the pain left her suicidal and feeling like a burden on her family.
Victoria Dethier, who was given Essure in 2012, suffered pain for three years before having a hysterectomy to remove it in 2015.
A survey in the British Medical Journal in 2015 found that women who had devices like Essure were 10 times more likely to need surgery compared with those who underwent standard sterilization.
Bruce said the complaints about Essure are similar to those of women who had
problems with mesh implants which are used to treat pelvic organ prolapse and incontinence after childbirth.Many have suffered severe discomfort and been left disabled. The Sunday Mail first exposed the mesh scandal in 2013.
Lawsuits in the US have led to around £2billion being paid out to mesh sufferers.
Around 800 women in Britain are thought to be seeking compensation from the NHS and the mesh implant manufacturers.
Last week, Bayer insisted the Essure contraceptive was safe.
A spokeswoman added: “Bayer has made the commercial decision to voluntarily discontinue the sales and distribution of Essure in all countries except the USA. Bayer would like to emphasise this decision is not related to any product safety or quality issues and, according to our scientific assessment, the favourable benefit-risk profile of Essure remains unchanged.
“Patient safety and appropriate use of Essure are our greatest priorities.
“We would like to reassure women who use Essure as their form of contraception and their healthcare professionals that they should have no concerns based on this purely commercial decision.”
A Scottish Government spokeswoman referred our request for information on Essure usage in to local health boards.
She added: “The Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency regulates medical devices across the UK, and we expect health boards to respond accordingly to any advice or alert by the agency.”
The London-based MHRA put out an alert in September to say Bayer were withdrawing the Essure device in Europe.
A spokeswoman added: “Any women with questions should speak to their GP or healthcare professional.”
Tayside, Borders, Forth Valley and Lanarkshire health boards said they had never used Essure.
Glasgow said they no longer used it.Grampian, Lothian, and Fife health boards did not respond to our request for information on Essure usage.
NHS Highland and NHS Dumfries and Galloway were unable to provide the information.
http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/scottish-news/at-one-point-wished-dead-11809319
-
Hernia Mesh Lawsuits Mount Against C.R. Bard, Davol
Jan 5, 2018 | RX Injury Help
By Sandy Liebhard
Sandy Liebhard is an Senior Partner at Bernstein Liebhard LLP
C.R. Bard, Inc. and Davol, Inc. continue to face a growing number of hernia mesh lawsuits in courts throughout the United States, with recent filings in Louisiana and Mississippi.Mississippi Plaintiff Claims Bard Ventralex Patch Incompatible with Human Tissue
According to a complaint filed in the U.S. District Court, Southern District of Mississippi, on January 2nd, Patrick Dove received an 8-cm circular Bard Ventralex patch in March 2014. He was forced to undergo hernia revision surgery last June due to complications and severe pain. (Case No. 3:18-cv-00003-CWR-FKB)
Like other products involved in the growing, nationwide hernia mesh litigation, the Bard Ventralex patch was brought to market via the U.S. Food & Drug Administration’s (FDA) 510(k) program, which does require a device to undergo human clinical trials if its design is based on a predicate product that previously underwent the agency’s standard pre-market approval process.
According to Dove’s hernia mesh lawsuit, Ventralex features a bilayer construction consisting of a self-expanding patch that contains two layers of polypropylene mesh stitched with polytetrafluorethylene monofilament to an expanded polytetrafluoroethylene sheet. The mesh component contains a “fully absorbable” recoil ring using SorbaFlex Memory Technology, an absorbable polydioxanone monofilament.
Dove alleges that Bard’s hernia mesh ismade of materials that are biologically incompatible with human tissue.
“Defendants knew that the technology used in the laminate layers would delaminate as evidenced by folding, shriveling, curling up on edges, and generally causing a separation of layers of the patch,” the complaint states.
“The scientific evidence Defendant knew or should have known of demonstrates that the mesh is incompatible with human tissue and often causes a negative immune response in patients implanted with the Bard Ventralex, including Plaintiff. The Ventralex patch is constructed with a polypropylene monofilament containing a resin-based polypropylene not suitable for human implantation,” it continues.Louisiana Hernia Mesh Lawsuit Claims Bard, Davol Failed to Manufacture Safe Device
According to a complaint filed on November 22nd in Louisiana’s Orleans Parish Civil District Court, Reginald Sanders was implanted with a Bard hernia mesh device in November 2004. He began to experience discomfort and pain near the surgical site shortly after the procedure. (Case No. 2017-11264)
In 2013, surgery to treat an abdominal abscess revealed that the repair site had become infected, allegedly due to the negligence of Bard and Davol.
The hernia mesh lawsuit accuses the companies of negligence and failure to manufacture a safe product.Nationwide Hernia Mesh Litigation
C.R. Bard and Davol are not the only medical device manufacturers involved in the nationwide hernia mesh litigation.
Johnson & Johnson and its Ethicon, Inc. subsidiary have been named defendants in dozens of Physiomesh lawsuits, following a worldwide market withdrawal of certain Physiomesh Flexible Composite mesh implants in March 2016. The majority of those hernia mesh cases have been centralized in a multidistrict litigation now underway in the U.S. District Court, Northern District of Georgia.
A multidistrict litigation has also been established in the U.S. District Court, District of New Hampshire, for product liability claims involving Atrium Medical’s C-Qur hernia mesh implant.
https://www.rxinjuryhelp.com/news/2018/01/05/hernia-mesh-lawsuits-mount-against-c-r-bard-davol/
Client Attorney Privileged/Attorney Work Product/At Request of Counsel
Online Sources
Add recipients
Suggested