Preview Newsletter
Ethicon Media Monitoring 6/20/2018
-
Pa. Panel Says J&J Unit Must Face Out-Of-State Plaintiffs
Jun 19, 2018 | Law 360
By Matt Fair
A Pennsylvania appeals court said Tuesday that a Johnson & Johnson unit’s business ties with the state were substantial enough to allow the company to face claims there from an Indiana woman who won a nearly $13 million verdict for injuries sustained from a pelvic mesh implant. -
Pa. court backs $12.8M verdict against Johnson & Johnson subsidiary in medical mesh defect case
Jun 19, 2018 | PennLive.com
By Matt Miller
A state appeals court panel refused Tuesday to overturn a jury's $12.8 million verdict against a Johnson & Johnson subsidiary in a medical product liability case involving surgically implanted mesh. -
Boston Scientific Wins Pelvic Mesh Trial in Massachusetts
Jun 19, 2018 | Drug Watch
By Michelle Llamas
A Massachusetts jury sided with Boston Scientific in the latest pelvic mesh lawsuit trial. It is the first win for the device maker since 60 Minutes exposed the company’s use of subpar Chinese plastic in mesh implants. -
$12.8M Pelvic Mesh Verdict Stands as Pa. Begins to Weigh 'Bristol-Myers' Venue Standard
Jun 19, 2018 | The Legal Intelligencer
By Max Mitchell
In the first instance of a Pennsylvania appellate court wading into the effects of the U.S. Supreme Court's high-profile decision in Bristol-Myers Squibb v. Superior Court of California, the Pennsylvania Superior Court has declined to toss a more than $12.8 million judgment against pelvic mesh maker Ethicon.
Client Attorney Privileged/Attorney Work Product/At Request of Counsel
Online Sources
-
Pa. Panel Says J&J Unit Must Face Out-Of-State Plaintiffs
Jun 19, 2018 | Law 360
By Matt Fair
A Pennsylvania appeals court said Tuesday that a Johnson & Johnson unit’s business ties with the state were substantial enough to allow the company to face claims there from an Indiana woman who won a nearly $13 million verdict for injuries sustained from a pelvic mesh implant.
J&J subsidiary Ethicon Inc., which is headquartered along with its parent company in New Jersey, had looked to dodge the verdict after arguing that a recent U.S. Supreme Courtdecision limiting the ability of state courts to hear claims from out-of-state residents should have resulted in the case being booted out of Pennsylvania.
But a three-judge Superior Court panel ruled Tuesday that Ethicon had clear and substantial business links with Pennsylvania, including its reliance on Philadelphia-area Secant Medical Inc. to manufacture the mesh, sufficient to give the state jurisdiction over claims from Patricia Hammons over the product’s alleged defects.
“This evidence establishes an affiliation between Pennsylvania and Hammons’ cause of action against Ethicon for defective design of the … device,” the opinion said.
The case was the first chance a Pennsylvania appeals court has had to weigh in on the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision last year that 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.
Since then, Ethicon has launched a renewed attack on whether the Philadelphia County Court of Common Pleas could retain jurisdiction over mesh-related claims filed by out-of-state plaintiffs as part of a mass tort program set up in February 2014.
That attack has included not only the challenge brought as part of the Hammons case, but also a motion asking the supervising judge of the pelvic mesh mass tort to reconsider his 2015 ruling preserving claims brought by non-Pennsylvania litigants.
Much like the conclusion reached by the Superior Court on Tuesday, the supervising judge in Philadelphia County ruled in December that Ethicon’s work with Secant meant that out-of-state plaintiffs could bring mesh claims in Pennsylvania.
While the supervising judge had agreed to allow his decision to be challenged on appeal in the Superior Court, the opinion handed down on Tuesday likely shuts down that avenue of litigation for Ethicon.
The case decided on Tuesday stems from a mesh implant that Hammons received in 2009 to correct sagging of her internal organs, but which became embedded in her bladder and left her with chronic pain and unable to have sex.
A jury sided with Hammons in December 2015 following a three-week trial and awarded $5.5 million in compensatory damages and $7 million in punitive damages.
The case was the first that Ethicon had faced in Philadelphia over mesh-related claims.
Since then, juries have sided with plaintiffs in five other mesh-related cases, including a $57.1 million verdict handed down in September, and some 94 cases remain pending, according to court records.
In addition to finding Ethicon was subject to jurisdiction in Pennsylvania, the Superior Court likewise rejected arguments on Tuesday that Hammons’ case was barred by a two-year statute of limitations and that she had failed to show that warning labels for the product were inadequate.
Shanin Specter, an attorney with Kline & Specter PC representing Hammons, said he was pleased by the decision.
"We are gratified by Superior Court’s very thorough and deeply thoughtful analysis of Ethicon’s arguments for judgment or new trial," he said in an email.
A spokesperson for Ethicon declined to comment, saying only that the company was reviewing the decision.
Judges Paula Ott, Victor Stabile and Senior Judge Correale Stevens sat on the panel for the Superior Court.
Ethicon is represented by D. Alicia Hickok, William Carr, Kenneth Murphy and Molly Flynn of Drinker Biddle & Reath LLP, Julie Callsen of Tucker Ellis LLP, Tarek Ismail of Goldman Ismail Tomaselli Brennan & Baum LLP, Stephen Brody of O’Melveny & Myers LLP and Susan Robinson.
Hammons is represented by Charles “Chip” Becker, Shanin Specter, Michelle Tiger, Lee Balefsky, Kila Fickes and Ruxandra Laidacker of Kline & Specter PC.
The case is Patricia Hammons v. Ethicon Inc. et al., case numbers 1522 EDA 2016 and 1526 EDA 2016, before the Pennsylvania Superior Court.https://www.law360.com/articles/1055309/pa-panel-says-j-j-unit-must-face-out-of-state-plaintiffs
-
Pa. court backs $12.8M verdict against Johnson & Johnson subsidiary in medical mesh defect case
Jun 19, 2018 | PennLive.com
By Matt Miller
A state appeals court panel refused Tuesday to overturn a jury's $12.8 million verdict against a Johnson & Johnson subsidiary in a medical product liability case involving surgically implanted mesh.
That decision, contained in an 82-page opinion by Judge Victor P. Stabile, binds Ethicon Inc. to pay those damages to a woman who claims a mesh device implanted in body left her with multiple medical problems, including chronic pain during sexual intercourse.
The Superior Court ruling comes two years after a Philadelphia County jury agreed with Patricia Hammons that her ailments were linked to the Prolift Kit mesh system New Jersey-based Ethicon marketed. Prolift uses mesh that is implanted in the abdomen to hold in place internal organs that prolapse and threaten to come out of the patient's rectum or vagina.
Hammons blamed her medical problems on surgery she had to implant Prolift mesh in her body in 2009. She sued Ethicon in 2013 after undergoing three surgeries to remove the mesh because of the problems her doctors said it was causing.
Stabile cited trial testimony by medical experts who said the design of the Prolift mesh was defective and was certain to cause medical issues. He noted one expert testified the mesh was too heavy and that it and plastic used in the kit causes inflammatory reactions.
Hammons also insisted Ethicon didn't provide adequate warnings of potential harm, the judge noted. Stabile added that Hammons initial surgeon testified that he would not have recommended Prolift to Hammons had Ethicon adequately informed him of the risks.
In denying Ethicon's appeal Stabile rejected the firm's claims that Pennsylvania courts don't have jurisdiction in the case, that Hammons waited too long to file her suit, and that the evidence didn't support the damage verdict.
Although Ethicon argued that Hammons missed a 2-year statute of limitations to lodge her complaint, Stabile agreed with her that the clock didn't start ticking toward that deadline until she concluded Prolift was the cause of her problems in 2011.
Stabile also cited testimony that Ethicon was aware that Prolift "failed frequently." As early as 2006, internal company documents women who underwent surgery to deal with Prolift problems would face "disaster," he noted.
Even Prolift's designers voiced concerns to the company about the safety of the type of mesh that was being used, the judge observed. "Ethicon recognized Prolift's risks but nevertheless continued to sell the product without adequate warnings," he wrote.
Ethicon can appeal the Superior Court ruling to the state Supreme Court.
The Hammons case is one of several where Ethicon has experienced costly legal defeats over Prolift. In April, for instance, a jury in the state of Indiana awarded $35 million in damages. A New Jersey jury issued a $15 million damage award against the company in December.
https://www.pennlive.com/news/2018/06/pa_court_backs_128m_verdict_ag.html
-
Boston Scientific Wins Pelvic Mesh Trial in Massachusetts
Jun 19, 2018 | Drug Watch
By Michelle Llamas
A Massachusetts jury sided with Boston Scientific in the latest pelvic mesh lawsuit trial. It is the first win for the device maker since 60 Minutes exposed the company’s use of subpar Chinese plastic in mesh implants.
The trial centered on Ana Martinez. Doctors implanted her with Boston Scientific’s Pinnacle Pelvic Floor Repair Kit and Obtryx Sling System-Halo in 2010. Her lawsuit said she suffered incontinence, painful sex and groin pain from the devices.
The Middlesex County jury decided Boston Scientific was not negligent in manufacturing its mesh products. Jurors found Boston Scientific did not fail to warn Martinez of the risks.
Boston Scientific’s win comes after a scathing 60 Minutes report in May 2018. The report found the company was importing counterfeit Chinese plastic for its mesh implants. Experts told 60 minutes the plastic was not fit for humans.
Right before the Martinez trial began, Boston Scientific’s Dave Pierce responded to the 60 Minutes report. Pierce is the president of the company’s urology and pelvic health division.
Pierce told Medical Device and Diagnostic Industry that the company stayed in the pelvic mesh business “because it’s the right thing to do for women.”
The 60 Minutes report painted a different picture. Chevron Phillips refused to continue supplying Boston Scientific with Marlex plastic. Chevron Phillips said the plastic was not for permanent implants in the human body.
Boston Scientific was desperate to keep its profitable mesh business. So, it bought counterfeit plastic from China despite several inconsistencies in the formula.
Pierce said the company does not regret its decision to import the plastic.
“We stand by the process through which we exported from China and imported into the United States,” he said.
In April 2018, Boston Scientific announced it was putting aside $800 million to settle transvaginal mesh lawsuits.
As of June 15, 2018, the mesh maker still faced 10,380 federal pelvic mesh lawsuits. At the height of pelvic mesh litigation, the company faced about 25,600 federal lawsuits.
https://www.drugwatch.com/news/2018/06/19/boston-scientific-wins-pelvic-mesh-trial-in-massachusetts/
-
$12.8M Pelvic Mesh Verdict Stands as Pa. Begins to Weigh 'Bristol-Myers' Venue Standard
Jun 19, 2018 | The Legal Intelligencer
By Max Mitchell
In the first instance of a Pennsylvania appellate court wading into the effects of the U.S. Supreme Court's high-profile decision in Bristol-Myers Squibb v. Superior Court of California, the Pennsylvania Superior Court has declined to toss a more than $12.8 million judgment against pelvic mesh maker Ethicon.
Access to full text unavailable – subscription required.
Story can be found here: https://www.law.com/thelegalintelligencer/2018/06/19/12-8m-pelvic-mesh-verdict-stands-as-pa-begins-to-weigh-bristol-myers-venue-standard/?slreturn=20180520024835
Client Attorney Privileged/Attorney Work Product/At Request of Counsel
Online Sources
Add recipients
Suggested