Preview Newsletter
Ethicon Media Monitoring 4/10/2019
-
Transvaginal Mesh Leadership Accuses Fee Objectors of False Attacks, Excessive Billing
Apr 9, 2019 | Law.com
By Amanda Bronstad
Lead plaintiffs’ attorneys in the transvaginal mesh litigation have fired back at four law firms objecting to their share of an estimated $550 million in fees, accusing them of making false attacks and submitting bills “riddled with excessive entries, duplicative billing” and other problems. -
Woman is jailed after exaggerating injuries from vaginal mesh operation
Apr 9, 2019 | British Medical Journal
By Clare Dyer
A woman who tried to defraud the NHS of £2.3m (€2.7m; $3m) by making an exaggerated clinical negligence claim over an unnecessary vaginal mesh operation in 2010 has been given a five month jail sentence. -
Mesh: Mum tells of horrific experience as NICE guidelines slated
Apr 9, 2019 | Oxford Mail (Also In The Oxford Times, Witney Gazette)
By Harrison Jones
An Oxfordshire mum forced to rely on a mobility scooter following vaginal mesh surgery has hit out at the practice, as new national guidelines caused outrage. -
Mother spotted on Ibiza hen party jailed over lies in £2.5m NHS claim
Apr 9, 2019 | Press Association (In North Wales Live, Leicestershire Live, National Health Executive)
By Sian Harrison and Amardeep Bassey
A woman who tried to cheat the NHS out of more than £2million by exaggerating injuries from botched surgery has been jailed after she was spotted at a hen party in Ibiza. -
AMS liable after putting its name on faulty mesh implants, class action claims
Apr 10, 2019 | Lawyerly
By Cat Fredenburgh
By putting its name on allegedly defective vaginal mesh implants, American Medical Systems held itself out as the manufacture of those devices, according to an...
Client Attorney Privileged/Attorney Work Product/At Request of Counsel
Online Sources
-
Transvaginal Mesh Leadership Accuses Fee Objectors of False Attacks, Excessive Billing
Apr 9, 2019 | Law.com
By Amanda Bronstad
Lead plaintiffs’ attorneys in the transvaginal mesh litigation have fired back at four law firms objecting to their share of an estimated $550 million in fees, accusing them of making false attacks and submitting bills “riddled with excessive entries, duplicative billing” and other problems.
In a Monday filing, Henry Garrard III, chairman of the fee and cost committee, said all four firms failed to demonstrate how their work contributed to the “common benefit” of all lawyers in the litigation over transvaginal mesh device.
“The objectors focus much of their objections on attacking the FCC and its members and the external review specialist and complaining of information they were allegedly not provided about other firms’ submissions,” Garrard wrote in Monday’s response to the objections. “However, the objectors do little to explain how and why the work they claim to have performed that the FCC questioned or did not recognize should be considered for the common benefit of the MDL plaintiffs, or why the FCC’s valuation of their contributions to the MDL is allegedly wrong.”
In fact, he wrote, many of the submissions were “riddled with excessive entries, duplicative billing, vague or inadequate descriptions of work claimed” and other timekeeping problems.
Garrard, a shareholder at Blasingame, Burch, Garrard & Ashley in Athens, Georgia, also refuted allegations of self-dealing and bill padding against law firms on the fee and cost committee. In its objection, Mazie Slater Katz & Freeman had accused plaintiffs’ attorney Bryan Aylstock of pressuring Garrard to boost the fees to his firm, Aylstock, Witkin, Kreis & Overholtz in Pensacola, Florida. Aylstock allegedly threatened that his fellow partner, Renée Baggett, who serves on the committee, would not sign off on its preliminary written recommendation without the increase. Aylstock Witkin eventually received more than $27 million in common benefit fees.
In Monday’s filing, Garrard called the account false, stating that he “has never felt taken advantage of by this firm.”
“The FCC evaluated the Aylstock firm’s submission by the same criteria as every other firm, which included the opportunity to provide and receive feedback and to be heard,” he wrote.
The use of such “caustic rhetoric” was “unfortunate,” he added.
“It serves no legitimate purpose for these objectors to air personal grievances or what they apparently believe to be ‘dirty laundry’ regarding alleged conversations with FCC members or with the external review specialist save perhaps to embarrass or insult,” he wrote.
He noted that the eight firms on the fee and cost committee were lead attorneys in the litigation from the start. In a footnote, he mentioned that a financial adviser also served on the fee and cost committee. “If there had been any attempt to subvert the process set forth by the court in its prior orders by anyone on the FCC, this court would have been made aware,” he wrote in the footnote. “There was not.”
Mazie Slater, based in Roseland, New Jersey, is one of four law firms objecting to the fees, paid to 94 law firms involved in more than 100,000 lawsuits over the devices, most of them coordinated in multidistrict litigation in federal court in West Virginia.
The fee and cost committee filed its final allocation recommendations March 12 (see chart), as did an “external review specialist,” Daniel Stack, a retired judge on the Madison County, Illinois, Circuit Court, who was appointed to review the fee allocation process.
Slater did not respond to a request for comment.
The other objectors are Philadelphia’s Kline & Specter, New York’s Bernstein Liebhard and Anderson Law Offices in Cleveland. Bernstein Liebhard partners Stanley Bernstein and Sandy Liebhard, and Ben Anderson, of Anderson Law Offices, did not respond to requests for comment.
Shanin Specter, of Kline & Specter, stood by his claims in an email.
“Our record of six trial victories—the most in this litigation—is ignored by the fee committee,” he wrote. “Instead, they resort to personal attack. And disturbingly, they don’t contest the substantial evidence of fraudulent billing and improper influence of and wrongful conduct by a court appointed officer, which casts a dark shadow on these proceedings.”
Many of the objecting law firms had sought compensation for work related to a New Jersey trial, in which an Atlantic County Superior Court jury came out with an $11 million verdict against Johnson & Johnson’s Ethicon Inc. in 2013.
Some cited a 2012 agreement under which the MDL leadership vowed to have a representative of the New Jersey cases on the fee and cost committee and “use their best efforts to ensure that the MDL court fairly compensates the aforesaid common benefit work.”
In Monday’s response, Garrard said the firms overstated the significance of that agreement.
He also called complaints that the fee and cost committee had not been transparent in the allocation process “baseless,” noting that the objectors had multiple opportunities to bring up their concerns with the fee committee or Stack.
“What is characterized by objectors as disproportionate is no different than what has been reflected in numerous other common benefit allocations: the firms who take on the most responsibility, who lead and oversee the litigation generally who devote the most resources and bear the most financial risk, and whose contributions were most valuable to the benefit of all MDL plaintiffs, receive the largest common benefit allocations,” Garrard wrote.
Here’s what the fee committee had to say about each of the objecting firms:
➤ Mazie Slater, objecting to $6.02 million in fees, claimed to be “one of the driving forces” of the mesh litigation, filing the first case in the country against Ethicon in 2008. But the fee committee found that the firm’s work was limited to a single product. “The firm did very little or nothing related to any other product or manufacturer that could be considered common benefit,” Garrard wrote. The committee also attached to Monday’s filing a common benefit order in the mesh lawsuits in New Jersey in which Mazie Slater received fees for its work. “Mazie Slater’s timekeeping records were also largely indecipherable, making the FCC’s task exceedingly difficult,” the committee added, noting time entries that “were so vague as to be meaningless.”
➤ Kline & Specter, objecting to $3.7 million in fees, sought compensation based on six verdicts the firm obtained for plaintiffs totaling more than $146 million, all in the Philadelphia Court of Common Pleas. It also claimed to assist in the New Jersey trial. But the committee found that the firm “has done very little work that could be considered for the common benefit” and, instead, was a beneficiary of work done by other lawyers. The committee also criticized the firm’s “campaign of denigration and harassment.”
“By causing unnecessary delay and expense and by seeking to diminish the amount of the common benefit award available to all applicant counsel simply because it feels slighted, KS has been a common detriment,” Garrard wrote. “This sort of behavior would warrant a reduction in its allocation rather than any increase.”
➤ Bernstein Liebhard, which is based in New York City, objecting to $942,000 in fees, had insisted that its former partner, Jeff Grand, “played a significant role” in both the New Jersey trial and in the multidistrict litigation against Ethicon. The fee committee, however, found that Grand, now at Seeger Weiss, “played a limited supporting role in four Ethicon cases that were tried by other firms.”
➤ Anderson Law Offices, awarded $7.2 million in fees, sought compensation for its work in the New Jersey trial and, more generally, in litigation against Ethicon. The fee committee said, “Anderson devotes comparatively little of his objection to explaining what he did in the litigation,” instead “criticizing the FCC, the external review specialist, or the allocation process generally.” The committee also accused the firm of duplicative and excessive billing. “Anderson’s submissions are either reflective of an egregiously ineffective and inefficient use of time, or else they are exaggerated—pure and simple,” he wrote.
https://www.law.com/2019/04/09/transvaginal-mesh-leadership-accuses-fee-objectors-of-false-attacks-excessive-billing/
-
Woman is jailed after exaggerating injuries from vaginal mesh operation
Apr 9, 2019 | British Medical Journal
By Clare Dyer
A woman who tried to defraud the NHS of £2.3m (€2.7m; $3m) by making an exaggerated clinical negligence claim over an unnecessary vaginal mesh operation in 2010 has been given a five month jail sentence.
Lesley Elder, 50, claimed she was in constant pain and could no longer work, walk unaided, or go on holiday, but was caught out by a Facebook photo of her in 2012 at her daughter’s hen party in Ibiza.
Investigators acting on behalf of the NHS put Elder under surveillance in …
Access to full text unavailable – subscription required.
Story can be found here: https://www.bmj.com/content/365/bmj.l1661
-
Mesh: Mum tells of horrific experience as NICE guidelines slated
Apr 9, 2019 | Oxford Mail (Also In The Oxford Times, Witney Gazette)
By Harrison Jones
An Oxfordshire mum forced to rely on a mobility scooter following vaginal mesh surgery has hit out at the practice, as new national guidelines caused outrage.
Margie Maguire, 42, believes surgery to treat a uteral prolapse could also be to blame for two miscarriages and she now fears she may never be able to have children again.
Mrs Maguire, who lives in Benson, near Wallingford, says she was not properly informed about the risks before the procedure, which following the birth of her now seven-year-old daughter.
Mesh surgery – commonly given to woman facing post-birth problem – has been blamed for a host of graphic health issues in thousands of women nationwide, including intense pain, the loss of mobility and sex lives. The implants have reportedly cut into women’s bladders, bowels and vaginas.
But in guidelines released last week, the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) listed mesh as one option for women with urinary incontinence and pelvic organ prolapse - to the fury of campaigners.
Mrs Maguire has since had surgery to remove most of the mesh and the pain attacks have subsided, but she remains reliant on a mobility scooter or wheelchair and home adaptations and cannot drive for more than half an hour without rest.
She explained: “It took me months to recover. I started suffering severe pain attacks. At one point, the pain was so bad that I asked my husband to knock me out. It affected my mobility – when I could walk around the hospital, it was by using a Zimmer frame. Mesh was still never discussed as a possibility for my pain.
“There are so many things I miss doing, I used to run half marathons and go camping with my husband. I loved dancing and running around with my seven-year-old daughter, going to the gym, doing the gardening, and so much more.
“Mesh has taken all of this away from me.”
She is working with Thompsons Solicitors, who represent hundreds of women in similar positions.
Lead lawyer Linda Millband said: “We’re incredibly concerned by the number of women and men across the country who have had their lives ruined as a result of these procedures.
"What’s become clear is that many of these people were never made aware of the risks of mesh, let alone provided less invasive alternatives."
But Nice are standing by their advice. Dr Paul Chrisp, director for the centre for guidelines, said: “The (guidelines) will ensure every woman who is considering surgery for urinary incontinence or pelvic organ prolapse has the best evidence currently available to inform her of the benefits and risks of each type of procedure."
Sling The Mesh's Kath Sansom said: "We are appalled that despite political campaigns and the obvious suffering of many women, these guidelines are no different from what was published in 2003.
"They are so weak, they clear the way for the next generation to be harmed. We told our stories and NICE ignored us."
She continued: "NICE also ignored important scientific evidence showing mesh risk is at least 1 in 10 suffering, by deliberately omitting a key study of NHS figures.
"Our Sling The Mesh survey shows 1 in 20 women have attempted suicide and more than half have regular suicidal thoughts because of chronic pain, loss of sex life, constant infections and auto immune disease.
"These are unacceptable risks from what is sold to women as a simple fix. If a men's operation was creating this level of harm it would have been stopped a long time ago."
Oxford University's Carl Heneghan, Professor of Evidence-Based Medicine and Director, Centre for Evidence-Based Medicine, added: "20 years after mesh was first introduced there are still considerable shortcomings in the evidence base: the quality of evidence for complication is weak and mostly lacking. A registry of all those who have had mesh inserted might be a better idea, and go some way to reducing the current uncertainties about the long term complications.
https://www.oxfordmail.co.uk/news/17560861.mesh-mum-tells-of-horrific-experience-as-nice-guidelines-slated/
-
Mother spotted on Ibiza hen party jailed over lies in £2.5m NHS claim
Apr 9, 2019 | Press Association (In North Wales Live, Leicestershire Live, National Health Executive)
By Sian Harrison and Amardeep Bassey
A woman who tried to cheat the NHS out of more than £2million by exaggerating injuries from botched surgery has been jailed after she was spotted at a hen party in Ibiza.
Lesley Maria Elder, 50, from Poole, Dorset, claimed she was left disabled by constant pain following a vaginal mesh operation and could no longer work or do routine tasks without help.
She sued the George Eliot Hospital NHS Trust in Nuneaton, where she underwent the surgery in 2010, for £2.5m.
But a judge found she had “grossly, dishonestly and repeatedly” exaggerated her symptoms after photographs appeared on Facebook of her at her daughter’s hen party in the Spanish resort.
Undercover surveillance also showed she was able to go shopping and to walk her dog regularly, without the aid of a walking stick.
Elder was jailed for five months at the High Court in London for contempt of court over her false claims.
She was sentenced in her absence after apparently taking an overdose of painkillers in court shortly before the hearing started.'Great seriousness'
Judge Karen Walden-Smith said: “This was a deliberate and persistent making of false statements for the purpose of falsely recovering significant monies from a publicly-funded body.”
The judge said only immediate custody was possible, given the “great seriousness” of the contempt committed by Elder.
She added: “This was an attempt to effectively defraud the NHS of a sum of more than £2m – public funds which are desperately needed for frontline services.”
The judge told the court Elder suffered a genuine injury as a result of the surgery, which it later transpired was not necessary because she had been misdiagnosed.
The NHS trust admitted liability but disputed the amount she claimed, and a judge at a county court in 2017 ruled she was entitled to just £120,000.
Judge Iain Hughes QC rejected her claims that she had become isolated and dependent on others for routine tasks including housework and shopping following the surgery.'Extensive and widespread exaggeration and lies'
He found she had not suffered the significant disability she alleged after surveillance footage showed her walking unaided, visiting the zoo with her grandson and shopping.
The NHS Trust brought committal proceedings against her at the High Court over the lies she had told during the county court case.
Judge Walden-Smith said Elder’s claims involved “extensive and widespread exaggeration and lies” – including her assertion that she could not go to her daughter’s hen party when in fact she was there and “fully participating”.
The judge said her mitigation included the fact she had suffered actual harm as a result of the unnecessary surgery and her previous good character.
She had also donated a kidney to her ex-partner to prevent her daughter from having to do so, which has had a further impact on her health.
The sentencing was delayed after Elder appeared to take a number of pills shortly before the judge came into court.
She was taken to hospital and the judge went ahead with the hearing in her absence.
Elder is likely to be released from prison after serving half her sentence.
https://www.dailypost.co.uk/news/uk-world-news/mother-spotted-ibiza-hen-party-16100471
-
AMS liable after putting its name on faulty mesh implants, class action claims
Apr 10, 2019 | Lawyerly
By Cat Fredenburgh
By putting its name on allegedly defective vaginal mesh implants, American Medical Systems held itself out as the manufacture of those devices, according to an ...
Access to full text unavailable – subscription required.
Story can be found here: https://www.lawyerly.com.au/ams-put-its-name-on-faulty-mesh-implants-class-action-claims/
Client Attorney Privileged/Attorney Work Product/At Request of Counsel
Online Sources
Add recipients
Suggested