Preview Newsletter
Ethicon Media Monitoring 4/10/2018
-
Johnson & Johnson accused of failing to warn patients at higher risk from vaginal mesh
Apr 9, 2018 | The Guardian
By Christopher Knaus
Company allegedly knew devices posed added risk for patients with compromised immune systems -
Implant inquiry shows scale of pain
Apr 9, 2018 | Executive Career
More legal action is expected following a scathing Senate report into pelvic mesh implants. -
McGinnis NJ Transvaginal Mesh Case to Close Wednesday
Apr 10, 2018 | Mesh Medical Device Newsdesk
The final days of the Mary McGinnis defective transvaginal mesh trial in New Jersey brought out the experts for the defense. -
Attorneys in C.R. Bard mesh trial spar over wording
Apr 9, 2018 | Legal Newsline
By John Sammon
Adam Slater, the attorney for plaintiff Mary McGinnis, attempted to use the previously published words of a noted female pelvic specialist serving as a witness for defendant C.R. Bard to refute the contention that mesh implant devices were safe. -
Transvaginal Mesh Lawsuit Plaintiff Takes Stand in First New Jersey C.R. Bard Trial
Apr 9, 2018 | RX Injury Help
By Sandy Liebhard
The plaintiff at the center of New Jerseys’ first trial of a transvaginal mesh lawsuit involving products manufactured by C.R. Bard, Inc. recently took the stand to recount the painful complications she allegedly experienced in connection with the company’s Align and Avaulta devices.Transvaginal Mesh Lawsuit Plaintiff: “It hurts so much you can’t cry.” -
Bluetooth-operated bionic sphincter controller close to human trial phase
Apr 10, 2018 | Sun Sentinel
By Ron Hurtibise
... For women, the most common surgical option — the transvaginal mesh — has been beset with problems. It’s a piece of synthetic material, or mesh, that creates a pelvic sling around the urethra and thickened muscle where the bladder connects to the urethra, to keep the urethra closed, particularly when coughing or sneezing.
Client Attorney Privileged/Attorney Work Product/At Request of Counsel
Online Sources
-
Johnson & Johnson accused of failing to warn patients at higher risk from vaginal mesh
Apr 9, 2018 | The Guardian
By Christopher Knaus
Company allegedly knew devices posed added risk for patients with compromised immune systems
The pharmaceutical giant Johnson & Johnson allegedly failed to warn women that its vaginal mesh devices posed a particular risk for patients with compromised immune systems, despite it being “well known” before they were first sold in Australia.
The federal court is currently deliberating on a landmark class action involving hundreds of women who have sued the multinational giant over the impact of its vaginal mesh devices.
The mesh was surgically implanted to treat stress urinary incontinence and pelvic organ prolapse, common complications of childbirth. It was marketed to surgeons as a simple, safe and affordable implant, which would boost their profits and speed up operations considerably.
But the devices left many women in debilitating pain and unable to have sex, ruining lives and causing long-term impairment.
Over a six-month hearing, the federal court heard allegations that Johnson & Johnson either knew of the risks or failed to properly test the devices before launching them on the Australian market.
On Monday, the women won the right to add a new allegation to its case: that Johnson & Johnson knew the devices posed an added risk for patients with compromised immune systems but failed to warn women.
Kathryn Gill, the lead applicant in the case, was among those who were not warned, the court heard.
Gill suffered from psoriasis but says she was not told of the added risk she faced in undergoing the surgery. She said she never would have gone ahead with the procedure had she known.
It was not until after Gill’s operation that warnings about immune problems were added to the instructions for a number of the mesh devices.
The warning read: “In patients with compromised immune systems or other conditions that would compromise healing, the risks and benefits should be carefully weighed.”
The court was also told that US regulators wrote to the manager of regulator affairs at Ethicon, Johnson & Johnson’s product development arm, in October 1990, well before the products were first sold in Australia. The letter “adverted to potentially delayed wound healing in patients with compromised health due to a number of factors”, according to the federal court.
The court also heard from a biomaterials expert, Prof Paul Santerre, who said it was well known that immune system problems made it more difficult for biomaterials to integrate with tissue. Santerre cited a 1997 report on the issue.
Mesh was not sold in Australia until after 1997.
The allegations about the immune system response were not initially included in the class action against Johnson & Johnson. But lawyers for the women launched a late bid to have them included in their formal pleadings, which was opposed by the company.
Federal court justice Anna Katzmann allowed the pleading to be changed in a judgment handed down on Monday afternoon. She rejected the arguments that doing so would put the company in an unfair position, having already argued its case.
“Having given careful consideration to the points raised by both parties, I am not satisfied that the amendments would cause any injustice to the respondents,” she said.
Katzmann has also allowed the women to seek an injunction that would prevent the mesh devices being sold or marketed in Australia without a comprehensive warning about the risks.
The company had attempted to argue that was a role best left to the Therapeutic Goods Administration (TGA), an argument Katzmann rejected.
Katzmann has reserved her full judgment in the case and it will be handed down at a later date.
https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2018/apr/10/johnson-johnson-accused-of-failing-to-warn-patients-at-higher-risk-from-vaginal-mesh
-
Implant inquiry shows scale of pain
Apr 9, 2018 | Executive Career
More legal action is expected following a scathing Senate report into pelvic mesh implants.
A Senate committee report has been handed down following inquiries into complaints from hundreds of Australian women, who said the devices left them with serious and debilitating side effects.
The report found some doctors may have been incentivised to sell the devices, which are designed to protect and help repair vaginal walls from the impacts of childbirth.
It recommended pelvic mesh “should only be used as a last resort”, and that some women had not been properly informed about potentially serious side-effects.
The report calls for:
· a national register to track implants
· better education for both doctors and patients
· more surgical training for the removal of the devices
· specialist counselling programs to be set up for women who have sustained injuries
· mandatory reporting of adverse events
The committee estimated between 10,000 and 15,000 women may have suffered side effects from mesh devices.
A class action by Shine Lawyers involving more than 700 women against manufacturer Johnson and Johnson was filed earlier this year.
Slater and Gordon lawyer Rhea Dillon says the firm is investigating a number of mesh manufacturers, which could lead to a second class action.
“The findings of this report support our view that more clinical evidence was needed before pelvic mesh products were marketed to tens of thousands of women across the country,” she said.
Ms Dillon said there is irrefutable evidence that women who received pelvic implants had gone through extensive suffering.
“What is incredibly concerning is that the risk of complication does not appear to be isolated to any one particular brand, but rather attached to the product itself,” she said.
Australian Medical Association (AMA) president Dr Michael Gannon said the report contains valuable lessons for the medical profession.
“In a perfect world, every doctor would listen dutifully to every complaint from patients and respond to it appropriately. But doctors are human and they don't all react perfectly,” he said.
“The fact is that things do go wrong with surgery and how we respond to the complaints that patients have is a critical element of being a good doctor.”
http://www.executivecareer.net.au/news/implant-inquiry-shows-scale-of-pain
-
McGinnis NJ Transvaginal Mesh Case to Close Wednesday
Apr 10, 2018 | Mesh Medical Device Newsdesk
Mesh Medical Device News Desk, April 9, 2018 ~ The final days of the Mary McGinnis defective transvaginal mesh trial in New Jersey brought out the experts for the defense.
Their contention is that McGinnis was not harmed by the Avaulta and Align transvaginal meshes implanted to treat incontinence and prolapse.
Instead, attorneys for defendant, C.R. Bard say that McGinnis ‘ injuries were preexisting.
Adam Slater of Mazie Slater Katz & Freeman represents Mary McGinnis.
The plaintiff contends that physicians (end users of the devices) did not receive adequate warnings about the dangers, that the meshes are defective and that manufacturer, C.R. Bard of Murray Hill, New Jersey, did little research before launching them into the marketplace.
McGinnis says she suffers from pain and nerve damage. She feels the mesh scar tissue and mesh implant shrinkage through her back legs, arms, neck and groin.
She has undergone a removal surgery by Dr. Shlomo Raz of UCLA who reported that the arms of Align and Avaulta had fused together into a polypropylene plastic mass that was cemented into her pubic bone.
THE EXPERTS
The lead defense attorney is Lori Cohen of Greenberg Traurig, who contends Ms. McGinnis suffers from osteoarthritis of her hips and spine and that causes her pain, not her implants.
On April 5, Dr. Peter Rosenblatt was called to testify. Dr. Rosenblatt has had a long term relationship with Boston Scientific, a competitor to CR Bard and ran its cadaver implant clinic.
Mesh New Desk has also reported he fronted the booth at the 2016 AUGS conference for Boston Scientific.
Slater asked Rosenblatt about an opinion the doctor authored in 2007 that said, “It is possible the use of synthetic mesh will become more common. Limited data is available supporting the use of synthetic mesh for the repair of pelvic organ prolapse (sagging bladder).”
Defense argues there was adequate background clinical studies done of Avaulta and Align mesh implants before McGinnis was implanted in 2009.
So which was it, Slater asked Rosenblatt.
Slater: “Was there plenty (data) or limited?”
Rosenblatt: “We used the word limited.”Slater: “Do you think plenty and limited are the same thing?
Rosenblatt: “I won’t quibble over semantics. There are lots of (prolapse) articles. Doctors always want more data.”Dr. Rosenblatt also said the Instructions for Use (IFU) were complete.
Slater played a video clip of implanting physician Dr. Elizabeth Barbee who told jurors “I don’t think it’s a complete (instructions) list.”
Rosenblatt also echoed that the mesh does not shrink and the Avaulta did not cause McGinnis any harm.
Dr. Michael Kennelly, a urologist, was another star witness for the defendant.
On April 3, Slater challenged him about his professional experience. Kennelly testified he had experience with the Avaulta and Align made by Bard but only implanted the Avaulta in cadavers, not live patients.“You never looked at a woman across the table, a woman with prolapse and said, ‘I think the best option for you is the Avaulta,” Slater said. “I have not place the Avaulta in a (live) patient,” said Kennelly.
When further questioned whether mesh in a live body can contract, change shape, distort, cause pain and tissue inflammation Kennelly said, “I do not believe mesh contracts.”
(Editors Note* This is a oft heard semantic discussion. Mesh itself without a surrounding body may not on its own contract, but when tissue is inflamed and responding to a foreign body, these product liability trials have shown mesh shrinkage has been found to be as high as 50%.)
The conversation continued according to LegalNewsLine which has access to a Courtroom View Network feed, Slater said.
Slater: “The scar tissue when it contracts, contracts the mesh down with it…you agree?”
Kennelly: “The mesh does not contract,” …It will conform to the surrounding environment.”
Slater: “Which means the mesh will be deformed and have less of an area, correct?”
Kennelly “If outside forces put pressure on it.”
Lori Cohen also pointed out the implant procedure led to an accidental perforation in the pelvic tissue.
Known as “buttonholing” Cohen contends it led to erosion at the surgical site and further harmed Ms. McGinnis.
Buttonholing is the injury to the vaginal wall during an implant by the trocar passage, or steel surgical too.
On the stand, Kennelly criticized the implanting doctor, Dr. Elizabeth Barbee and the buttonholing that resulted from the surgical implantation.
Judge James DeLuca cautioned the witness not to use the word “error” because Dr. Barbee is not the defendant. In doing so, he knowingly takes some blame away from the manufacturer.
Kennelly admitted the buttonholing issue, “did cause or contributed to erosion of the vaginal wall.”
He calls McGinnis a “nerve-type pain,” that did not relate to the Avaulta device.
Slater reminded Kennelly that Dr. Barbee, a North Carolina gynecologist, said she would have not chosen an Avaulta if she had known all of the complications.
“That’s what she stated,” Kennelly said.
Kennelly echoed the defense contention that Ms. McGinnis has back and spine issues that have progressed over time.
LegalNewsLine reports that Dr. Kennelly produced a training video and program for C.R. Bard that taught implanting physician Barbee about the Avaulta and Align implant. She reportedly attended three times.
In the industry, Kennelly would be known as a preceptor or trainer/ consultant for industry.
C.R. Bard removed its Avaulta pelvic organ prolapse from the market in 2012. Align was taken from the market in 2016.
McGinnis v C.R. Bard is case No. L01754314 being heard in Bergen County state court, New Jersey Superior Court, before Judge James DeLuca. It began March 19th. ###
LEARN MORE:
ProPublica Dollars for Doctors, Look up your physicians’ relationship with industry.
https://projects.propublica.org/docdollars/doctors/pid/469303Kennelly, a urologist from Charlotte, NC, reports he received 318 payments from 16 companies totaling $242,704 in 2015. Rosenblatt, an OB-Gyn from Cambridge, Mass. is listed as receiving $65,000 in 2015.
https://projects.propublica.org/docdollars/doctors/pid/300029MND, May 10, 2017, Appeals Court Backs BSC Win in NC Pelvic Mesh Lawsuit
https://www.meshmedicaldevicenewsdesk.com/appeals-court-backs-boston-scientific-win-north-carolina-pelvic-mesh-lawsuit/Dr. Kennelly was the physician for Martha Carlson who lost her pelvic mesh trial before a Statesville, North Carolina Jury in October 2015. He had told jurors any warnings from Boston Scientific were inadequate.
MND, June 3, 2014, A Serious Concern as Doctors Divide (featuring Kennelly)
https://www.meshmedicaldevicenewsdesk.com/open-letter-to-doctors-a-serious-concern-as-doctor-divide/
https://www.meshmedicaldevicenewsdesk.com/mcginnis-nj-transvaginal-mesh-case-to-close-wednesday/
-
Attorneys in C.R. Bard mesh trial spar over wording
Apr 9, 2018 | Legal Newsline
By John Sammon
HACKENSACK, N.J. (Legal Newsline) – Adam Slater, the attorney for plaintiff Mary McGinnis, attempted to use the previously published words of a noted female pelvic specialist serving as a witness for defendant C.R. Bard to refute the contention that mesh implant devices were safe.
Slater - of Mazie, Slater, Katz & Freeman in Roseland, New Jerse - maintained there was insufficient background clinical study done on the Avaulta and Align mesh implant devices McGinnis had implanted in 2009 to treat bladder issues that she alleges caused her to suffer severe inflammation and pain. The mesh had to be removed.
McGinnis sued New Jersey-based C.R. Bard, the manufacturer of the pelvic implant devices, in New Jersey Superior Court in Bergen County. In addition to the pain and suffering, she alleges the company was more interested in marketing the devices than it was in making sure they were safe before they were first offered to the public in 2007.
Streaming video coverage of the trial was provided to Legal Newsline by Courtroom View Network.
During the April 5 session, Slater produced an opinion authored by Dr. Peter Rosenblatt, a Massachusetts female pelvic and reconstructive surgery specialist called to testify in the trial on behalf of C.R. Bard.
A passage in the document, written in 2007 just before the Avaulta went to market, read, “It is possible the use of synthetic mesh will become more common. Limited data is available supporting the use of synthetic mesh for the repair of pelvic organ prolapse (sagging bladder).”
“You wrote this, right?” Slater asked.
“Yes,” Rosenblatt answered.
“Was there plenty (data) or limited?” Slater asked.
“We used the word 'limited,'” Rosenblatt said.
“Do you think (words) 'plenty' and 'limited' are the same thing?” Slater said.
“I won’t quibble over semantics,” Rosenblatt said. “There are lots of (prolapse) articles. Doctors always want more data.”
Slater also challenged that McGinnis received proper warning of the risks of using the Avaulta and Align devices, a contention of the plaintiff from the start of the trial. Though doctors had used pelvic mesh support devices they had fashioned themselves previous to the Avaulta, the device, a mesh of clear polypropylene with connecting arms, was among the first to come in kit form in a box.
“You said it’s a great IFU (instructions for use on the kit), right?” Slater asked.
“It is,” Rosenblatt answered.
Slater then had projected a film clip of Dr. Elizabeth Barbee, the North Carolina gynecologist who implanted the defendant's mesh in McGinnis in 2009.
“I don’t think it’s a complete (instructions) list,” Barbee said on tape.
Asked about her comment, Rosenblatt responded, “That’s what she said.”
During cross-examination the attorney for C.R. Bard, Lori Cohen of Greenberg Traurig challenged the plaintiff's contention that the mesh, once inside McGinnis’ body, contracted, changed shape and deformed, causing constriction, excessive inflammation and the formation of stiff, scarring tissue resulting in intense pain.
Rosenblatt agreed the mesh did not shrink.
“The mesh is an innocent bystander,” he said. “Mesh does not have contractible elements. It does not shrink like a T-shirt.”
Rosenblatt also said he saw no evidence that using a lighter-weight mesh would be any safer or cause fewer problems, refuting another allegation the implant device was too large, causing tissue damage when McGinnis’ body tried to reject it.
“Do you have an opinion that the Avaulta caused Mary McGinnis any harm?” Cohen asked.
“These did not cause her any harm,” Rosenblatt said.
“Were there any safer alternatives to the Avaulta?” Cohen asked.
“There were not,” Rosenblatt answered.
“You don’t believe there was contraction?” Cohen asked.
“No,” Rosenblatt said.
“Do you believe the adverse reactions (warnings) were appropriate?” Cohen asked.
“Completely,” Rosenblatt responded.
https://legalnewsline.com/stories/511384288-attorneys-in-c-r-bard-mesh-trial-spar-over-wording
-
Transvaginal Mesh Lawsuit Plaintiff Takes Stand in First New Jersey C.R. Bard Trial
Apr 9, 2018 | RX Injury Help
By Sandy Liebhard
Sandy Liebhard is an Senior Partner at Bernstein Liebhard LLP
The plaintiff at the center of New Jerseys’ first trial of a transvaginal mesh lawsuit involving products manufactured by C.R. Bard, Inc. recently took the stand to recount the painful complications she allegedly experienced in connection with the company’s Align and Avaulta devices.Transvaginal Mesh Lawsuit Plaintiff: “It hurts so much you can’t cry.”
“Sharp pains in the vagina,” Mary McGinnis, 70, told a Bergen County Superior Court jury on March 29th “They radiate out and can go in any direction they want, sharp thick pains that shoot up. You realize nobody can help me – I have to tough it through. The pain is unending; the burning is horrible. It’s beyond debilitating. It hurts so much you can’t cry.”
According to her complaint, McGinnis was implanted with Align and Avaulta pelvic mesh devices in 2009 to treat stress urinary incontinence and pelvic organ prolapse. She has since undergone several additional transvaginal mesh revision surgeries, including vaginal reconstruction, to treat complications allegedly caused by the implants, including tissue inflammation, scar tissue formation, and mesh shrinkage, yet continues to cope with chronic pain and discomfort.
McGinnis, who operates a childcare facility, told jurors that her pelvic mesh complications have affected her ability to work.
“I would tell parents bringing their child for an interview, ‘I can no longer lift your child, but I can love your child,’” McGinnis said.
McGinnis claims that her Avaulta and Align mesh implants were defectively designed and manufactured. She further asserts that C.R. Bard knew that the material used to manufacture the devices could interact adversely with vaginal tissue but failed to warn doctors and patients of this risk.
The case is Mary McGinnis VS C.R. Bard, Inc, No. 017543-14C.R. Bard Transvaginal Mesh Litigation
In recent years, more than 100,000 transvaginal mesh lawsuits have been filed in U.S. courts against C.R. Bard and other device manufacturers, including American Medical Systems, Inc., Boston Scientific Corp., and Ethicon, Inc.
Only two cases involving C.R. Bard’s products have gone to trial thus far, with two juries ruling in favor of plaintiffs:In 2012, a jury in California Superior Court awarded $5.5 million to another Avaulta plaintiff.A second Avaulta recipient was awarded $2.2 million by a West Virginia federal court jury in 2013.The defense prevailed in a 2016 Missouri case involving C.R. Bard’s Align and Boston Scientific’s Solyx implants
In recent years, C.R. Bard has reached agreements to confidentially settle hundreds of additional transvaginal mesh claims involving its devices.
https://www.rxinjuryhelp.com/news/2018/04/09/transvaginal-mesh-lawsuit-plaintiff-takes-stand-in-first-new-jersey-c-r-bard-trial/
-
Bluetooth-operated bionic sphincter controller close to human trial phase
Apr 10, 2018 | Sun Sentinel
By Ron Hurtibise
Most of us don’t have to give much thought to the mechanics of going to the bathroom.
Our bodies tell our brains when we have to go, and our brains tell our bodies when it’s acceptable to do so.
But millions of people with incontinence have to cope numerous times a day with the reality that the brain-to-body messaging they once took for granted will never operate normally again.
In a small office building in Fort Lauderdale, inventor Peter H. Sayet says he’s close to marketing a device that will enable incontinence sufferers to regain control of their urinary functions.
Sayet is president and CEO of Precision Medical Devices Inc., which he founded in 1998. In the past two decades, the company has secured nine patents and spent $5 million raised from about 200 investors through private-placement stock offerings to develop a Bluetooth-operated bionic sphincter controller, which he calls the Flow Control Device.
It’s an implanted valve designed to fit around the urethra of a man or woman. The valve is opened and closed by a cable connected to a battery-operated controller inserted on the patient’s side, under the skin. When it’s time to urinate, the patient — or in the case of an Alzheimer’s sufferer, a caregiver — uses a wireless fob or phone app to tell the controller to open and close the valve. Batteries are recharged wirelessly and must be replaced every five or six years.
Sayet said he first thought of the idea two decades ago, walking through a supermarket and coming upon a large display of adult diapers. “I thought, ‘How many of those are filling up our landfills? There’s got to be a better solution,’” he said.
In development for 20 years, the Flow Control Device has been successfully implanted in two dozen dogs and should be commercially available for dogs by year’s end, Sayet said.
In addition to extending dogs’ lives, the device’s success with canines could pave the way for the U.S. Food and Drug Administration to green-light human trials sometime next year, followed — Sayet and his investors hope — by approval of the device for human patients by 2020.
The surgery to implant the device should last no longer than 35 minutes and requires a single incision below the belt line, Sayet said. Cost of the procedure and device should be no more than $15,000, he said. It’s not yet known whether the device would be covered by health insurance.
Sayet said the device has the potential to help 35 million to 40 million people with urinary incontinence. They include children with hereditary diseases, including spina bifida, a birth defect that occurs when the spine and spinal cord don’t develop properly and can interfere with operation of the nerves that supply the bowel and bladder. Seventy-five percent of patients with spinal cord injuries suffer incontinence, as do paraplegics. Women often develop urinary incontinence because their pelvic nerves and muscles can be damaged during vaginal childbirth.
The device would also be a quantum leap, Sayet said, over the two most commonly implanted incontinence controllers currently on the market.
One is a urethra valve for males that a patient must control manually by squeezing a controller inserted in the scrotum. Sayet said that in addition to requiring two to three hours of surgery, a major problem with this valve is it cannot be implanted into Alzheimer’s patients because they often lack the mental capacity to operate the controller. The Flow Control Device would overcome that hurdle because the patient’s caregiver could operate the fob or the phone app after the patient is seated on the toilet, he said.
For women, the most common surgical option — the transvaginal mesh — has been beset with problems. It’s a piece of synthetic material, or mesh, that creates a pelvic sling around the urethra and thickened muscle where the bladder connects to the urethra, to keep the urethra closed, particularly when coughing or sneezing.
Failure rates for the vaginal mesh have been unacceptably high, Sayet said. About one in 30 women have required removal or revisions of the mesh after experiencing problems that include erosion of the material into the vaginal tissue, Reuters reported. More than 50,000 women in the United States have joined class-action lawsuits against manufacturers of the devices.
Sayet’s valve works for women and men in essentially the same manner, he said.
“We think ours will be the gold standard,” he said.
After the urethral valve is on the market, he expects to develop further versions, including one with a larger valve to help patients who have had colostomies to reroute their intestines or colons to a port, called a stoma, in their abdomens. Colostomy patients currently have no control over their waste functions and must wear bags over their stomas that must be emptied multiple times a day.
Future devices could also help control of morbid obesity, Gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD), and erectile dysfunction, Sayet said.
Most of the prototype development and assembly takes place in contracted engineering labs, he said, and the dog prototypes were implanted by veterinary surgeons at the University of Miami and University of North Carolina.
Sayet said he has chosen to invest money raised from investors into research rather than waste it on expensive and showy laboratories and offices.
Sayet’s work has the support of numerous urology specialists, including Dr. Angelo Gousse, a former tenured professor of urology at the UM’s Miller School of Medicine, who now serves as the company’s chief of surgery and member of its medical scientific board.
In late March, Sayet announced a strategic collaboration with the Mayo Clinic in Jacksonville and its incontinence expert, Dr. Paul Pettit, to help advance the Flow Control Device to the clinical trials phase.
Mayo Clinic spokesman Kevin Punsky confirmed last week that Pettit and the clinic are collaborating with Precision Medical Devices, but said the collaboration is in the early stages and that “Dr. Pettit is not available for comment at this time.”
One of Precision Medical Devices’ earliest investors, Miami-based family practice physician Dr. Victor Krestow, said he hasn’t lost any enthusiasm about the invention over the 20 years it has been in development.
Krestow, who said he has invested “well into six figures,” calls the project “thrilling.”
“I’ve been in private practice here in my medical building 48 years,” he said. “And I see patients one at a time. This gives me an opportunity to help millions of people who suffer urinary incontinence.”
He’s even excited about the potential to extend the lives of dogs who will get the device. Incontinence, he noted, is one of the major reasons owners euthanize their dogs. Sayet said the implant and procedure should cost about $3,500 for dogs.
http://www.sun-sentinel.com/business/fl-bz-bluetooth-sphincter-controller-company-20180405-story.html
Client Attorney Privileged/Attorney Work Product/At Request of Counsel
Online Sources
Add recipients
Suggested