Preview Newsletter
Ethicon Media Monitoring 4/1/2019
-
Pelvic Mesh MDL Fee Committee Accused Of Self-Dealing
Mar 29, 2019 | Law 360
By Andrew Strickler
A group of firms that worked on cases for plaintiffs in the multidistrict litigation over pelvic mesh implants has accused fee committee members of self-dealing and obscuring the process of divvying up the case's proceeds. -
Slater Comes Out Swinging in Pelvic Mesh Fee Allocation
Mar 29, 2019 | Mesh Medical Device News Desk
By Jane Akre
Pelvic mesh manufacturers, who have overwhelmingly lost at trial, must be secretly smiling at the dirty dealings now revealed as some transvaginal mesh attorneys hotly contest the half billion in attorney fee dollars being divided. -
Doctors Performing Dangerous Hernia Mesh Surgeries When They’re Not Even Needed
Mar 29, 2019 | The Ring of Fire Network
By Farron Cousins
... With more than one million surgical procedures performed in the U.S. each year, hernia surgery has become one of the most common operations performed in this country. -
Southmead Hospital admits nearly 60 mesh surgery patients should never have been operated on
Mar 29, 2019 | Bristol Live
By Emma Grimshaw
Almost 60 people who underwent a controversial type of bowel mesh surgery should never have been operated on, a hospital trust has admitted. -
Mum says life 'ruined' after she had controversial surgery in Bristol
Mar 31, 2019 | Bristol Live
By Emma Grimshaw
A mum says she plans to take Southmead Hospital to court for 'ruining' her life after she underwent a controversial mesh operation.
Client Attorney Privileged/Attorney Work Product/At Request of Counsel
Online Sources
-
Pelvic Mesh MDL Fee Committee Accused Of Self-Dealing
Mar 29, 2019 | Law 360
By Andrew Strickler
A group of firms that worked on cases for plaintiffs in the multidistrict litigation over pelvic mesh implants has accused fee committee members of self-dealing and obscuring the process of divvying up the case's proceeds.
In one recent filing, New Jersey-based personal injury firm Mazie Slater Katz & Freeman said the committee's recommendations on a split of the "common benefit" fees had largely ignored its role as one of the “driving forces and largest risk-takers” in the massive litigation.
The firm also said some members of the fee and cost committee had raised concerns that committee leaders — chair Henry Garrard of Blasingame Burch Garrard & Ashley PC, Joseph Rice of Motley Rice, and Clayton Clark of Clark Love & Hutson GP — had “predetermined” to give themselves the lion’s share of the fund at the expense of other firms.
Adam Slater of the Mazie Slater firm also claimed that in the “most glaring example of self-dealing,” attorney Bryan Aylstock of Aylstock Witkin Kreis & Overholtz pressured Garrard to up his firm’s award by $10 million by threatening to stop an Aylstock firm partner who sits on the committee from backing the award recommendation.
Retired Judge Daniel Stack, who was appointed by the court to oversee fee allocations, “stated that he ‘was sickened’ and ‘angered’ by this conduct, which he described as Mr. Aylstock pressuring [Garrard] when he was particularly vulnerable,” according to the filing.
The litigation accusing Boston Scientific Corp. of making defective pelvic mesh implants was first centralized in West Virginia six years ago as three MDLs covering 150 cases. It later grew into seven MDLs with some 53,000 lawsuits.
In January, U.S. District Judge Joseph R. Goodwin in West Virginia ordered that 5 percent of all proceeds should be set aside for attorneys at 94 common benefit firms, representing some $336 million. Stack and the fee committee issued their fee allocation recommendations to the court in mid-March.
In another March 26 filing, personal injury firm Kline & Specter PC also objected to its $3.745 million award from the common benefit fund, and said fee committee members were attempting a “mass taking.”
The Philadelphia-based firm, which has raised previous objections about the fee committee, also accused Stack of “rubber stamping” the committee’s recommended awards and severely underestimating the firm’s contributions in mesh-focused state court litigation.
“Mr. Stack’s methodology, if one exists, is severely flawed,” the firm said, calling his contribution “worthless.”
A third law firm, Ohio’s Anderson Law Offices LLC, also told the court the eight-member fee committee had authorized for their own firms 66 percent of the total pool, leaving the rest to 79 other firms. Garrard, Rice and Clark “alone are enriching themselves with 41 [percent] of the total fund; an astonishing $143,669,635,” the firm said. “By definition, this is self-dealing pure and simple.”
Messages left for Stack, Garrard, Rice and Clark were not immediately returned Friday. The fee committee has not filed a response.
The referenced mesh MDLs are numbers 2187, 2325, 2326, 2327 and 2387, case number 2:12-md-02327, in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of West Virginia.
https://www.law360.com/articles/1144648/pelvic-mesh-mdl-fee-committee-accused-of-self-dealing
-
Slater Comes Out Swinging in Pelvic Mesh Fee Allocation
Mar 29, 2019 | Mesh Medical Device News Desk
By Jane Akre
Pelvic mesh manufacturers, who have overwhelmingly lost at trial, must be secretly smiling at the dirty dealings now revealed as some transvaginal mesh attorneys hotly contest the half billion in attorney fee dollars being divided.
In all, 94 firms had something to do with transvaginal mesh litigation at one time or another. Most never conducted a trial or a deposition.
But a lone law firm that led the way in New Jersey, “a catalyst of the overall litigation” says it is not being fairly recognized by the law firms heading the fee committees as they engage in “self-dealing” and padding their hours.
“Mazie Slater requests a fee award commensurate with its status as one of the few fundamental leaders of this litigation,” the firm says in a March 26 filing.
In a 26 page objection, Adam Slater points to five law firms that will average $41 million in fees, while Mazie Slater’s expenses and hours were cut by the Fees and Cost Committee (FCC) whose members are at the top of the compensation list.
A final recommendation on divvying the dollars, which could reach $550 million, was issued on March 12 by the FCC and retired judge Daniel Stack.
See MND story here.
In the end, FCC chair,Henry Garrard’s firm (Blasingame) fee was almost nine times greater than Mazie Slater, Motley Rice was 7.73 times greater, Clark Love was 7.17 times greater, Wagstaff Cartmell was 6.14 times greater, and Aylstock was 4.37 times greater than Mazie Slater. All fees had to be approved by the FCC.
Those five firms averaged $41 million in fees, while Mazie Slater’s expenses and hours were cut.
“The inescapable conclusion is that the most important qualification for common benefit fees was a set on the FCC, or a close affiliation with an FCC member” ~ Adam Slater
Mazie Slater
There is no doubt that Mazie Slater has a long list of contributions that created the successful litigation against mesh maker, Ethicon (Johnson & Johnson).
The Roseland, New Jersey firm has been litigating transvaginal mesh cases longer than any other in the country. Mazie Slater filed the first Ethicon case on March 27, 2008, (Lombardi v Ethicon), before the Food and Drug Administration came out with its first Public Health notification about the complications of pelvic mesh, which started a legal gold rush by firms looking to profit from pelvic mesh litigation.
Slater says consider his firm:Tried first cases against Ethicon in New Jersey, 2013 (Gross v. Ethicon)Files first case against Ethicon in Superior Court in March 2008 (Lombardi v Ethicon)Questioning 93 witnesses in four bellwether trialsDeveloped Tom Margolis and Anne Weber as Expert witnessesHad J&J assets considered in punitive phaseDeveloped the Prolift trial package, Bard Avaulta trial packageTaking over 235 depositionsMazie Slater accumulated $2.7 million in held costs,FCC reduces awarding $1.8 million for costs
Background-
In 2012 when the transvaginal mesh MDL formed in West Virginia, Judge Joseph Goodwin expected Adam Slater would be the unofficial New Jersey liaison who would be invited frequently to participate in the FCC which refused to disclose details or documentation about its common benefit submissions. State court work would be valued on an equal basis with the MDL.
The New Jersey MDL was formed on September 13, 2010.
A 5% common benefit fee would be attached to every settlement and trial verdict eventually amounting to $7.25 billion and expected to grow. In all, 94 law firms submitted more than 900,000 hours of common benefit time.
Adam Slater tried multiple Prolift POP mesh cases in state courts around the country. The verdicts in the plaintiffs’ favor came from depositions, scientific experts, and strategies used at every trial. Other presentation and winning legal theories were shared with plaintiff firms and the blueprint even was applied to TVT cases, since it too is made by Ethicon.
FCC Chairman Henry Garrard, meanwhile tried one case, Cisson v Bard, the second Avaulta Plus trial (Scott v C.R. Bard in Bakersfield was the first).
One reason many Mazie Slater hours were cut was because of an FCC issued rule stating that “Once a favorable result was reached with regard to a particular TVM product, no further state court time was considered by the FCC as being for the common benefit.”
If that was true, why then would Garrard receive anything or his work in Cisson? Instead, Slater argues every trial is important and should be credited for its own merits as “each trial refined the attack, putting sustained pressure on the defense.”
This so called “rule” unfairly harms Mazie Slater, he writes.
Aylstock – Putting on Pressure to Up the Ante
Mazie Slater calls it a “disturbing” and “glaring example of self-dealing.”
Bryan Aylstock of Pensacola, Florida-based Aylstock, Witkin, Kreis & Overholtz, allegedly refused to allow his partner Renee Baggett to sign the fee committees proposed written recommondations unless his firm received more in fees. Eventually Aylstock received an increase of about $10 million.
Judge Stack disclosed this conduct, writes Slater, which he was reportedly unable or unwilling to remedy, alelgedly saying he “was sickened” by this conduct.
Judge Stack has accused the Motley Rice firm of padding its time with “thousands of phantom hours” including time to re-review documents already reviewed.
Judge Stack would only act on pre-approval of the FCC to grant an award and he confirmed additional amounts he recommended for Anderson Law and Bernstein Liebhard, but no additional dollars would be given to Mazie Slater because the FCC did not approve the increase.
Dirty Dealings?Disparate hourly rates make up another objection. Mazie Slater was awarded an average hourly rate of $202, and $309, while the FCC firms were awarded an hourly rate of $730 an hour, even to firms that took no depositions and tried no cases. The highest hourly fee went to Clark Love at $913 an hour, which tried one case.Riley Burnett is a name not heard in this MDL. That’s because he never tried a case, did no significant depositions and worked n Coloplast cases, a product never litigated, yet Slater writes Burnetts’ firm was awarded almost the same amount as Mazie Slater.Some of the FCC firms claimed they worked on the Linda Gross case, however Mazie Slater says it conducted virtually all of the discovery and every aspect of the trial with two exceptions. “No other lawyers made an argument or spoke to a witness, the Judge or jury.”In the Vioxx litigation, Joseph Rice (Motley Rice) objected to what he called “self-dealing” which he said showed a disregard for the contributions in this litigation. Ironically, Mazie Slater points out, Mr. Rice learned well because in the pelvic mesh litigation, the FCC awarded 8 FCC firms (Motley among them) 62.5% of the fund. That averages out of $27.36 million per FCC firm.
Garrard, Rice and Clark alone took in $143,669,635 million, which is 41% of the total FCC fund.
The final written report recommends this allocation be a template for ongoing litigation. Mazie Slater says that is not supported.
The New Jersey firm served discovery requests on the FCC so it could object with information, but that discovery was refused.
Mazie Slater isn’t done.
It will take depositions of FCC members to uncover why its work is not being fair compensated. It wants materials submitted to the court in camera (in private).
Philadelphia law firm, Kline Specter also has filed an objection based on its successful litigation yet and the “critical role” in transvaginal mesh litigation totaling more than $146 million.
Judge Goodwin has rejected its motion to appoint a new special master.
https://www.meshmedicaldevicenewsdesk.com/slater-comes-out-swinging-in-pelvic-mesh-fee-allocation/
-
Doctors Performing Dangerous Hernia Mesh Surgeries When They’re Not Even Needed
Mar 29, 2019 | The Ring of Fire Network
By Farron Cousins
Via America’s Lawyer: Farron Cousins and Attorney Robert Price discuss Hernia Mesh surgeries. With more than one million surgical procedures performed in the U.S. each year, hernia surgery has become one of the most common operations performed in this country. With medical companies rushing to get new hernia repair products on the market, the rigorous testing that should be done is tossed by the wayside, and ultimately, the patients are the one who pay the price. Farron Cousins fills in for Mike Papantonio on this episode of America’s Lawyer.
Transcript:
*This transcript was generated by a third-party transcription software company, so please excuse any typos.
Farron Cousins: With more than 1 million surgical procedures performed in the United States each year, hernia repair has become one of the most common operations performed in this country. And anytime a market expands drug companies and medical device manufacturers are always right there to cash in on it. But in their rush to get new hernia repair products on the market, the rigorous testing that should be done gets tossed by the wayside and ultimately the patients are the one who pay the price.
Joining me now to talk about this is Robert Price and attorney who is actually handling hernia mesh product cases. So Robert, we’ve had you on the show in the past, but, but let’s just kind of start with the basics. What exactly is this hernia mesh?
Robert Price: So thanks for having me again, Farron. This hernia mesh is, it’s a, most of it is polypropylene based, which is essentially plastic fishing line. And we’ve seen this used on the market for a couple of decades now. And what’s happening and the reason we’re bringing lawsuits is that over the past 10 or 15 years, manufacturers have really started to balloon out and do some experimental things with their meshes that are causing patients very, very serious complications.
Farron Cousins: And so, you know, what kinds of problems are we seeing with these products?
Robert Price: So, you know, there are a lot of different things going on essentially from the patient’s perspective. They’re seeing their, their hernia repairs fail. They are getting things like bowel perforations, massive infections. Some of these meshes are, meshes are also used in what we call inguinal repairs. So every now and then you will see the nerves and the pelvis be affected. Even things like orchiectomy, men losing their testicles, things that are really serious because of the complications that are happening.
So that’s from the patient’s side, from the device side of things to, to summarize it in a nutshell, first of all, the polypropylene plastic used in the mesh has some problems. It’s subject to breaking down, degradation. Some companies even use stuff that’s imported from different plants that isn’t medical grade. Things like that. And then on top of that, manufacturers in a race to kind of have the newest, coolest, best product or doing things like they have rings in them or they have this gel coating that’s on them. Lots of different things going on that’s not necessarily proven scientifically or medically.
Farron Cousins: So, so this is really interesting because we’re not just talking about this product is causing discomfort. People are losing body parts from this. That is, see, that’s something I, I had not seen in, in my research yet. So that’s, that’s pretty remarkable to know, especially when you consider the fact that we do have so many of these surgeries performed each year and that number is actually growing with every year. So one of the lawsuits has actually been filed, says that these mesh products are “incompatible with human tissue.” Explain that a little because that seems pretty big for something that is meant to be sewn on to human tissue.
Robert Price: Yeah, that’s right. And there’s, there’s a lot of different ways a device can be incompatible. For one, it’s sort of an experiment on the market. So the companies didn’t necessarily do enough, you know, scientific experiments and controlled studies that we see with a lot of other drugs and devices. With hernia mesh especially, they really didn’t study the devices. We’re just learning these things as they go onto the market and hurt people. So incompatibility, few different things. One, we talked about the degradation the nonmedical grade stuff that’s being used.
Another thing is the design of the mesh itself. The, the way it’s woven together, it’s too dense. The pores are too small. The body, when the body heals around it, it forms this big collagen barrier. It causes the mesh to contract and to, you know, it, it grows nerves in it and things like that. And then there’s also other incompatible, compatibility issues like the coatings that are used on the mesh.
It essentially walls off the mesh, which is bad as well. And then, you know, one company just as an example, uses a fish oil on the mesh that is just scientifically unproven. And somebody who just had the idea that, um, well let’s see, fish oil helps with digestion. So maybe we’ll take this mesh and we’ll dunk it in fish oil. Like things like that that are going on in the market, that’s just crazy. So yeah, in a lot of ways a lot of different design aspects are not truly compatible with the human body. To have the human body heal with mesh, it needs to be able to safely grow into the mesh and heal up around it almost perfectly so that the body doesn’t do things like over heal around it. It doesn’t grab nerves.
And when you, when I say things like people have lost testicles or people have bowel perforations, the body in many of these cases grows up into the mesh and it starts to turn the mesh into like a shrunken ball. And it turns into this hardened ball and it will either grab the spermatic cord causing testicle loss or it’ll even puncture through the organs causing bowel perforations and removed intestines and, and pretty intense stuff.
Farron Cousins: So this, these mesh products, they’re actually meant to, to stay in the body. Like once the surgeries performed? Like that’s just a part of you now? That’s, that’s how they are?
Robert Price: Supposed to be, supposed to be. That’s supposed to be, the concept is it’s supposed to be in there. It’s supposed to be what’s called inert. It’s not supposed to degrade. It’s not supposed to migrate or move. It’s, the body’s supposed to grow into it and it’s supposed to heal around it. And that’s theoretically what’s supposed to be happening. But with all of these different designs that are coming onto the market, like I said before, it’s not, it’s not a true controlled study.
It’s more of a, hey, we’ve got this new design doctor, you’ll be able to insert this mesh in and out. It’s real quick, it’s real easy. And then years later we find out from the adverse event reports that people are getting hurt from the mesh. Is, which is really not the way that science or medicine is supposed to work.
Farron Cousins: So why was there not rigorous testing done, you know, prior to these products coming on the market? Because as you’ve mentioned, they’re just kind of coming out with, we’ve dumped ours in fish oil, so here it is. Put this in. Where was the testing?
Robert Price: Well, you know, it’s one of the things that the FDA is slowly coming around to years and years and years. I mean the FDA has been talking about this process for many years now. It’s called the 510k approval process. It’s not, or excuse me, it’s the clearance process. It’s not an approval process. A lot of people think if a drug or medical devices is on the market, it must’ve gone through some kind of safety or testing. But in the medical device world, which is a lot of the law that I’ve been practicing for several years, if a device has come through the market through the clearance process, we call the 510k process, all it has to do is prove it is substantially equivalent to something else. thats on the market.
So in, you know, the FDA, this, this substantial equivalent standard, it was a really loose and relaxed standard. So with the story of mesh, and I’ve been doing, you know, the pelvic mesh cases for about eight years now. What that means is that you can have a mesh product that was put on in the market in the mid 2000’s to actual kind of story timeline here, mid to early 2000’s of mesh products put it on the market and then later on a year or two later, somebody can just say, oh, mine’s just like that except a few device tweaks.
And then another year later, oh, mine’s just like that, except a few more tweaks. And these little tweaks sort of grow along the way and they become a, anomalies or disasters and they all spawned from this mesh device years ago that’s no longer really relevant and you can just have this, it’s almost like a wildfire effect. You could just have these devices just grow off one another and they never really get reviewed for safety or efficacy. They just, they just keep pumping these things out and the FDA just kind of clears them with this 510k clearance process.
Farron Cousins: So, so it’s basically an, an evolution of these products. You know, originally you start with the thing that that I guess did have to be tested. And then well I’m similar to that, well I am similar to that, and then you go along the evolutionary chain here and you end up with something that’s really not even close to what it began with. But along the way, it was close enough and that’s terrifying for consumers.
And we’ve seen that with a lot, you know, not just the mesh products, but pretty much, you know, a whole gamut, whether it’s, you know, a nip, knees, hips, whatever it is, they go through this same process and we’re seeing problems with a lot of these products. So, but mesh, it’s not even necessary to have mesh to repair a hernia. I mean, we were repairing hernias in this country long before these mesh kits came out. So why the change? Why are we now using kits instead of the old fashioned way?
Robert Price: Right, right. So you know, you see a couple of different things. One, like you said, a lot of times it seems to be because these hernia meshes are so marketized their, the sales reps are in there, hey, put these in. Their low, all the representations that are being made to doctors, as a doctor, it kind of sounds like, okay, so easy, minimal risk, no recovery time. Let’s, and this mesh is supposed to be there permanently, let’s just use this mesh. So a lot of times if you have a hernia, especially if it’s a smaller hernia, you don’t necessarily need mesh.
And those are questions, discussions you can have with your doctor. And I’ve had scenarios before where I’ve had a patient or even a family friend say, okay, I’ve got a three centimeter umbilical hernia, which is where my belly button is. Doctor wants to use a mesh. And you know, we have a discussion, well, well can you ask your doctor why he or she needs to use a mesh in the first place? And sometimes that works.
So you realize not every hernia needs a mesh. And then there are different meshes out there. Not every mesh has to be made of plastic based mesh. And what, what type of meshes the doctor uses. There’s so many out there. Some of the newer basic generation meshes are somewhat better, arguably, but a lot of doctors don’t know that. A lot of times it’s just kind of whatever’s on the shelf at the hospital.
So, so yeah, getting to your question, it’s not necessarily meshes is something that has to be used and there are different types of meshes. There are biologically compatible meshes that aren’t synthetic or plastic or they aren’t coded and things like that. So just, so yeah. Yeah, it’s a, it’s a discussion that has to be had with the doctor. First question always is, do you have to use a mesh and can you use my own tissue too? A lot of times the answer to that question is yes. And then on top of that, what kind of meshes being used here, and you can do some research and see are these the type of meshes that are subject to lawsuits.
Farron Cousins: Well great. Robert Price, thank you very much for talking with us today.
Robert Price: Thanks, thanks for having me.
https://trofire.com/2019/03/29/doctors-performing-dangerous-hernia-mesh-surgeries-when-theyre-not-even-needed/
-
Southmead Hospital admits nearly 60 mesh surgery patients should never have been operated on
Mar 29, 2019 | Bristol Live
By Emma Grimshaw
Almost 60 people who underwent a controversial type of bowel mesh surgery should never have been operated on, a hospital trust has admitted.
Dozens of women - some of whom have now been told they should have been offered alternative treatments to the surgery - were left disabled or in severe pain after the surgery.
Between 2007 and 2017, Anthony Dixon pioneered a type of pelvic floor surgery, performed life-changing surgery on at least 57 people who have been left with devastating results on their lives.
Mr Dixon worked at two Bristol hospitals – Southmead and the Spire.
One patient, Lucinda Methuen-Campbell, committed suicide after undergoing the treatment at the Spire. The mum-of-two told her family the pain was too severe to live with.
Sam Van der Heijden also had the operation at Spire, and had to be transferred to Southmead after becoming “severely ill" following the treatment.
Speaking at the time, she said: “I am in constant pain, stress and discomfort because I can no longer go to to the toilet without the help of drugs and a rectal irrigation unit.
“I have lost my job as a result of having so much time off for sickness and I now have to sell my house because I can’t afford to stay there. The whole ordeal has also cost me my marriage.”
This week, Southmead Hospital has published its results from an 18-month investigation.
It found 57 people should have been offered alternative treatments before their surgery. The inquiry ruled a further 73 patients were given the operation appropriately - however some of these patients are still fighting this conclusion.
Mr Dixon, who was suspended in 2017 following initial concerns, is still subject to an interim order.
His technique is known as laparascopic ventral mesh rectopexy (LVMR), and the surgeries began as far back as the early 2000s.
Following reports by Mr Dixon's patients about complications and chronic pain after the surgery, North Bristol NHS Trust launched a far-reaching inquiry.
The review investigated cases carried out over a 10-year period from 2007 to 2017.
And now, 18 months on, the trust has written to Mr Dixon's patients at Southmead Hospital, apologising.
The letter begins: "I am very sorry to tell you that in the opinion of the clinical advisory group, you should have been offered alternative treatments before proceeding to surgery."
The trust said the surgery was carried out successfully on all 57 patients, but added they "should have been offered alternative treatments before proceeding to surgery".
A further 73 patients have been told their surgery was appropriate, and investigations into 13 other cases are still to be completed.
The vast majority of the operations were carried out by Mr Dixon, but some were performed by a further three surgeons.
The trust's medical director Dr Chris Burton said he wanted to apologise to patients who received unnecessary surgery.
"It is unacceptable and we are taking it extremely seriously.
He added immediate action was taken to "ensure it couldn't happen again", and patients have been supported.
"We will keep investigating to ensure we have identified those patients affected by these issues, and to find out what happened to learn lessons for future care."
Mr Dixon said he was "unable to comment on specific allegations" due to patient confidentiality and "while relevant investigations are on-going".
"There is a need for caution in comparing the use of mesh in different procedures with very different risks and outcomes," he added.
Spire Healthcare said it is carrying out a similar review which it hoped would be complete in May.
Mesh implants are medical devices used by surgeons to treat pelvic organ prolapse and incontinence in women, conditions that can commonly occur after childbirth.
The mesh, usually made from synthetic polypropylene, is intended to repair damaged or weakened tissue.
https://www.bristolpost.co.uk/news/health/southmead-hospital-admits-nearly-60-2697212
-
Mum says life 'ruined' after she had controversial surgery in Bristol
Mar 31, 2019 | Bristol Live
By Emma Grimshaw
A mum says she plans to take Southmead Hospital to court for 'ruining' her life after she underwent a controversial mesh operation.
Dozens of women - some of whom have now been told they should have been offered alternative treatments to the surgery - were left disabled or in severe pain after the surgery.
Between 2007 and 2017, Anthony Dixon pioneered a type of pelvic floor surgery. He worked at two Bristol hospitals - Southmead and the Spire - and carried out the surgery on dozens of people.
One woman, Lucinda Methuen-Campbell, who had the operation at the Spire, committed suicide after having the treatment, telling her family the pain was too severe to live with.
This week, North Bristol Trust has admitted at least 57 people should have been offered alternative treatment rather than the intrusive operation.
Paula Goss was another of the many patients treated by Mr Dixon.
During the hospital's far-reaching inquiry, Paula was identified as one of 57 patients who was given the surgery appropriately.
She claims Mr Dixon misdiagnosed her condition and then ploughed ahead with the operation when it was not the best option.'He's ruined my life'
Since the treatment, Paula has had chronic pain so severe she can barely work, and has had to step back from her passion in life which was riding horses.
She says she she struggles to sleep for longer than a few hours each night, because she is woken up by pain.
She claims she now relies on her husband to be her carer, helping her to get dressed and cleaned.
"He's (Mr Dixon) ruined my life," said Paula. "He told me that I had a bladder and bowel prolapse, which I later found out was not correct.
"He recommended this treatment to me, saying it was five-star, it would change my life. He said there were no risks.
"He was very good at selling it to me. I thought it would be the best thing to do."
In August 2018, an MRI scan revealed a large, benign tumour on Paula's right ovary, which was removed in January this year.
Between September and December last year, Paula has also been "in and out" of Southmead Hospital with pericarditis - inflammation of the sac surrounding the heart.
The self-employed taxi driver says she has constant pain in her lower back.
She said: "You can't sit down for long periods of time - but you also can't walk very far.
"It's not just the physical pain, but the emotional pain too.
"The most shocking thing was receiving that letter this week, and reading that I'd had a surgery that I wasn't supposed to have.
"There are so many other patients that have been affected by this. It's a massive issue," Paula added.
Medical negligence specialists from Thompsons Solicitors are already representing more than 90 patients who received LVMR mesh surgery at Southmead and Frenchay hospitals in Bristol.
North Bristol NHS Trust Medical Director Chris Burton said: “Our investigations have been thorough and involved a panel of experts including an independent surgeon.
“They concluded some patients experienced problems after surgery that was given appropriately, for recognised indications.
“All patients have been offered follow-up treatment where needed and we would urge anyone with concerns to contact us.”
Mr Dixon, who was suspended in 2017 following initial concerns, is still subject to an interim order.
https://www.bristolpost.co.uk/news/bristol-news/mum-says-life-ruined-after-2702581
Client Attorney Privileged/Attorney Work Product/At Request of Counsel
Online Sources
Add recipients
Suggested