Preview Newsletter
Ethicon Media Monitoring 2/13/2018
-
Pa. Judge Oks J&J Unit's Pelvic Mesh Jurisdiction Appeal
Feb 12, 2018 | Law 360
By Rachel Graf
A Pennsylvania state judge conceded Friday that there is a “substantial” jurisdictional issue affecting 71 cases involving out-of-state residents suing Johnson & Johnson subsidiary Ethicon Inc. in Philadelphia’s mass tort program over pelvic mesh injuries, thereby allowing an appeals court to consider whether local courts have jurisdiction over out-of-state claims. -
Insurer Fights $17.3M In Coverage For Pelvic Mesh Claims
Feb 12, 2018 | Law 360
By Ryan Boysen
A Medmarc Casualty Insurance Co. unit on Friday hit medical device maker Medtronic PLC with a suit in Virginia federal court, alleging Medtronic negotiated a sloppy and deceitful settlement to end underlying pelvic mesh claims and is therefore not entitled to $17.3 million in coverage. -
Mary Dickson Finds Attorney in Case Against J&J
Feb 12, 2018 | Mesh Medical Device Newsdesk
... She had planned to take the wrongful death case of her mother, Vada Mae Smith, ahead Pro Se, without an attorney in mutidistrict pelvic mesh before Judge Joseph Goodwin. -
Sling the Mesh campaigner tells of implant horrors
Feb 12, 2018 | Harwich and Manningtree Standard
A MUM-of-two joined more than 100 a hundred women on a modern day suffragette rally against the use of mesh implants that cause shocking injuries.
Client Attorney Privileged/Attorney Work Product/At Request of Counsel
Online Sources
-
Pa. Judge Oks J&J Unit's Pelvic Mesh Jurisdiction Appeal
Feb 12, 2018 | Law 360
By Rachel Graf
Law360 (February 12, 2018, 6:12 PM EST) -- A Pennsylvania state judge conceded Friday that there is a “substantial” jurisdictional issue affecting 71 cases involving out-of-state residents suing Johnson & Johnson subsidiary Ethicon Inc. in Philadelphia’s mass tort program over pelvic mesh injuries, thereby allowing an appeals court to consider whether local courts have jurisdiction over out-of-state claims.
Philadelphia Court of Common Pleas Judge Arnold New's decision enables the company to appeal a December order keeping alive a number of cases in the mass tort brought by out-of-state plaintiffs. Ethicon has argued that a recent U.S. Supreme Court decision that California state courts don’t have jurisdiction over allegations by non-Californians undermines the patients’ original jurisdiction argument.
“The jurisdictional issue presented by the order is more substantial than most, in that it affects more than 70 cases that are pending in this mass tort proceeding, and judicial resources would be conserved by an immediate appeal of this court’s ruling,” Ethicon argued in December.
The court had affirmed in December that it has jurisdiction over all 71 cases involving out-of-state residents except for those in which an out-of-state plaintiff was implanted with Ethicon’s Prolift+M pelvic mesh device. The mesh in Prolift-M was not manufactured by Pennsylvania-based Secant Medical Inc., according to court documents.
But the court’s amendment of the order to state that a “substantial question of jurisdiction exists” allows an appeal of the decision.
Three years ago, the court rejected Ethicon’s original attempt to toss claims from out-of-state plaintiffs, but said in August it would reconsider the decision.
At the time, Ethicon pointed to a June ruling from the Supreme Court that found Bristol-Myers Squibb Co. did not have sufficient business contacts in California to confer courts there with jurisdiction over some 600 lawsuits brought by out-of-state plaintiffs over injuries allegedly caused by the blood-thinner Plavix.
The 8-to-1 opinion came just weeks after another ruling from the justices that found two out-of-state employees couldn’t sue BNSF Railway Co. in Montana given the company’s lack of a bona fide business presence in the state.
Ethicon emphasized that its position as a New Jersey-based business meant that non-Pennsylvanians could not bring their claims in Philadelphia County.
Counsel for the parties didn’t immediately respond Monday to requests for comment.
The plaintiffs are represented by Lee Balefsky of Kline & Specter PC, and Clayton Clark of Clark Love & Houston.
Ethicon is represented by Kenneth Murphy and Melissa Merk of Drinker Biddle & Reath LLP, and Julie Callsen of Tucker Ellis LLP.
The case is In Re: Pelvic Mesh Litigation, case number 140200829, in the Philadelphia County Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia.
--Additional reporting by Dan Packel. Editing by Kelly Duncan,https://www.law360.com/articles/1011470/pa-judge-oks-j-j-unit-s-pelvic-mesh-jurisdiction-appeal
-
Insurer Fights $17.3M In Coverage For Pelvic Mesh Claims
Feb 12, 2018 | Law 360
By Ryan Boysen
Law360 (February 12, 2018, 6:59 PM EST) -- A Medmarc Casualty Insurance Co. unit on Friday hit medical device maker Medtronic PLC with a suit in Virginia federal court, alleging Medtronic negotiated a sloppy and deceitful settlement to end underlying pelvic mesh claims and is therefore not entitled to $17.3 million in coverage.
Medtronic is covered under three policies with Medmarc unit Noetic Specialty Insurance Co., each with an overall limit of $10 million. The policies were issued to Medtronic unit Covidien PLC, which Medtronic acquired in 2015.
Covidien is seeking $17.3 million in coverage for a settlement it reached in 2015 with a plaintiffs firm over defective pelvic mesh claims. But Medmarc said Covidien shouldn’t see a dime because the insured consistently refused to provide information about the mesh cases, reached an inflated settlement without putting up a fight and then failed to mention that a separate settlement had already brought $121 million pouring into Covidien’s coffers.
“Covidien has sought insurance coverage from Medmarc for these claims, but … in doing so has repeatedly disregarded [its] obligations and Medmarc’s rights under the policies,” the insurer said in its complaint. “Because Covidien’s disregard for its obligations under the policies precludes coverage for the pelvic mesh claims reported by Covidien, the court should issue a declaration to that effect.”
Medmarc issued the three $10 million claims-made “products-completed operations” policies to Covidien from 2008 to 2011. Each policy contains a $2.5 million “self-insured retention,” which functions similarly to a deductible and must be exhausted before coverage kicks in.
Covidien is allowed to reach “reasonable” settlements with legal adversaries that will count toward exhausting the SIR, but once the policy kicks in Medmarc must sign off on any settlements.
Covidien, along with several other Medtronic units, is involved in the manufacture and sale of pelvic mesh, a medical product used to treat several urogynecological conditions. For nearly a decade, producers of pelvic mesh have been hit with a tidal wave of lawsuits for allegedly selling defective mesh that’s led to a litany of complications after being implanted in patients.
Medmarc said that after the pelvic mesh suits began piling up in 2009, Covidien repeatedly refused to provide information it requested, including an analysis of all the pending suits and the possible value of each.
“In early 2012, frustrated at having received no case-specific evaluations, Medmarc retained counsel, at its own cost,” and requested that its attorneys take an active role in defending and evaluating the pelvic mesh suits, Medmarc said. Covidien refused and “offered no meaningful reasons for its refusal,” Medmarc said.
In 2015, Covidien reached a settlement with Blasingame Burch Garrad & Ashley, a law firm representing roughly 760 pelvic mesh plaintiffs suing Covidien for an undisclosed amount. In a footnote, Medtronic said it will file the total amount of the settlement later on, under seal.
Covidien is seeking $17.3 million from Medmarc for 132 of those claims it said are covered under the policies, but Medmarc said Covidien didn’t even bother to notify it of the settlement until a year after it was reached.
On top of that, Medmarc said, the payout per claim is “substantially higher than that paid by other manufacturers of mesh products” to settle similar claims. Medmarc said that’s because Covidien simply settled on a number with Blasingame to cover the whole batch, and never bothered to investigate the possible value of each individual claim.
“Covidien has never taken a mesh claim to trial, and has no reasoned basis for concluding that the average settlement value of the claims asserted against it is substantially higher than the average settlement value of claims settled by other mesh manufacturers,” Medmarc said.
Medmarc also said Covidien’s $17.3 million request “neglected to advise that Covidien had, a full year earlier, reached a settlement” with C.R. Bard, another medical device company that marketed and sold the mesh products that Covidien and its subsidiaries manufactured.
Bard agreed to pay $121 million to Covidien in exchange for Covidien releasing any and all claims against Bard. Medmarc said that not only did Covidien fail to “reduce Covidien’s allocation to Medmarc by even one penny to account for the” settlement, but that its policy expressly forbids insureds from releasing claims against third parties like Bard without Medmarc’s consent.
As it stands, the deal will prevent Medmarc from suing Bard later on as a subrogee of Covidien, if it determines Covidien was lowballed on the settlement amount, Medmarc said.
“The released claims were subject to transfer to Medmarc under the policies, which forbade Covidien from impairing Medmarc’s subrogation rights after loss by entering into such a release,” Medmarc said.
Neither party responded Monday to requests for comment.
Medmarc is represented by Conor P. Brady, Harry Lee and John F. O’Connor of Steptoe & Johnson LLP.
Counsel information for Medtronic was not immediately available.
The case is Noetic Specialty Insurance Co. v. Medtronic PLC et al., case number 1:18-cv-00139, in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia.https://www.law360.com/articles/1011274/insurer-fights-17-3m-in-coverage-for-pelvic-mesh-claims
-
Mary Dickson Finds Attorney in Case Against J&J
Feb 12, 2018 | Mesh Medical Device Newsdesk
Mesh Medical Device News Desk, January 30, 2018 ~ There were many responses to the story of Mary Dickson.
She had planned to take the wrongful death case of her mother, Vada Mae Smith, ahead Pro Se, without an attorney in mutidistrict pelvic mesh before Judge Joseph Goodwin.
Well here is an update.
I’ve removed the Mary story. She has found an attorney who would like to proceed with this case against Johnson & Johnson, maker of the TVT and TVT-O, out of the public eye.
Dickson went to court alone or Pro Se believing that the polypropylene pelvic meshes led to the infections that eventually killed her mother in 2016. Mary had two law firms but asked they drop her as a client, and they agreed to do so.
The Dickson case and 150 others are set for trial in Charleston, WV May 15, 2018, in this transvaginal mesh multidistrict litigation (MDL) which is slowly being whittled down from a high of 104,000 plaintiffs against seven mesh manufacturers. See Dickson, So District WV, (No. 2:15-cv-02800).
Mary would like to thank you all for your support and words that made her feel very special after the death of her mother Vada Mae and her sister Ruth. She promises to keep you all updated on her progress, but for now requests the story remain out of the eyes of the defendant, J&J.
This is an excellent example of how many mesh-injured are helping each other. Mary listened to the advice of “Samantha” who led her to the law firm that took up the Dickson case.
We will comply with her wishes and wish her well. ##
https://www.meshmedicaldevicenewsdesk.com/mary-dickson-finds-attorney-case-jj/
-
Sling the Mesh campaigner tells of implant horrors
Feb 12, 2018 | Harwich and Manningtree Standard
A MUM-of-two joined more than 100 a hundred women on a modern day suffragette rally against the use of mesh implants that cause shocking injuries.
Corinda Daw, from Harwich Road, Little Oakley, travelled to London on Tuesday to take part in the protest - held to tie in with the centenary of when women were first given the right to vote in the UK.
Campaign group Sling The Mesh staged the rally outside the House of Lords in a bid to stop the use of mesh currently used for pelvic organ prolapse and incontinence after childbirth.
The group says some women have been left in permanent pain, unable to walk or work.
Corinda had a trans-vaginal tape operation, using mesh, in 2013 after suffering mild incontinence since the birth of her son - now 19.
She said: “Straight away I had problems with it, I couldn’t pass water and had to self-catheterise and have ongoing pain.
“I get pain in my legs and pubic area and I’m very worried about it getting worse.
“Some women are totally disabled from it.
“It’s like having a ticking time bomb inside you.”
The 52-year-old added: “The mesh is made from polypropylene, the same plastic they make drinks bottles out of.
“It stiffens up and erodes and can cut into the bladder or bowel.
“Only four surgeons in the UK can take them out as it’s like trying to get hair out of chewing gum - it embeds in the nerves.
“I joined Sling the Mesh last September - we want the mesh banned so our daughters don’t have to suffer.”
While women protested, Lord Phillip Hunt inside the House of Lords asked why pelvic mesh was banned in New Zealand last year, but is still used routinely in the UK.
Corinda said: “There were more than 100 women protesting with placards and banners, but so many are so disabled they couldn’t get there.
“It was great to be there and put the point forward.
“People are starting to listen and a lot of women are turning it down now.
“I was told it was the gold standard treatment, but I would have been better off if I hadn’t had had it done.”
Kath Sansom, of Sling The Mesh, said: “A century ago Government heard the political voices of women, so in 2018 it is time they heard our voices to stop the biggest women’s health disaster since Thalidomide.
“We have women in the group who are suicidal, who don’t want to carry on because the pain is so intense - yet previously they led healthy lives.”
http://www.harwichandmanningtreestandard.co.uk/news/15982338.Little_Oakley_mum_joins_modern_day_suffragette_rally/
Client Attorney Privileged/Attorney Work Product/At Request of Counsel
Online Sources
Add recipients
Suggested