Preview Newsletter
Ethicon Media Monitoring 4/26/2019
-
Jury says J&J must pay $120 million in mesh injury case
Apr 25, 2019 | Reuters
By Nate Raymond
A state court jury in Philadelphia has ordered Johnson & Johnson to pay $120 million to a Pennsylvania woman who said she was severely injured by a negligently designed pelvic mesh implant made by the company’s Ethicon unit. -
J&J Unit Ethicon to Appeal $120 Million Pelvic Mesh Verdict
Apr 25, 2019 | Bloomberg Law
By Julie Steinberg
Johnson & Johnson unit Ethicon will appeal a $120 million verdict in a pelvic mesh case in Pennsylvania. -
Pennsylvania woman awarded $120 million in vaginal mesh case against Johnson & Johnson
Apr 25, 2019 | Philly.com
By Sam Wood
A subsidiary of Johnson & Johnson must pay $120 million to a Pennsylvania woman who was severely injured by vaginal mesh implanted to treat urinary incontinence. -
Defense Win for J&J Subsidiary in Latest Pelvic Mesh Trial
Apr 26, 2019 | The Legal Intelligencer
By Max Mitchell
A Philadelphia jury has declined to hold Johnson & Johnson subsidiary Ethicon liable for injuries that a woman claimed she suffered as a result of the company’s allegedly defective pelvic mesh product. -
Philadelphia Jury Slams J&J With $120M Pelvic Mesh Verdict
Apr 26, 2019 | The Legal Intelligencer
By Max Mitchell
The verdict came after a three-week trial in Judge Kenneth Powell's courtroom, and the award included $20 million in compensatory damages, as well as $100 million in punitive damages. -
Johnson & Johnson and Ethicon prevail over plaintiff who claimed product-related injuries in pelvic mesh trial
Apr 25, 2019 | PennRecord
By Nicholas Malfitano
After five years of litigation, a Philadelphia jury recently found in favor of Johnson & Johnson, one of its subsidiaries and partner companies, who were accused of manufacturing a pelvic mesh product that a plaintiff claimed caused her to suffer incontinence and other injuries. -
Plaintiff wins $120m in latest pelvic mesh trial against Johnson & Johnson unit
Apr 26, 2019 | Mass Device
By Brad Perriello
A state court jury in Philadelphia reportedly slapped Johnson & Johnson (NYSE:JNJ) subsidiary Ethicon with a $120 million verdict yesterday in a product liability lawsuit brought over one of its pelvic mesh products. -
US court orders J&J to pay $120m in damages over pelvic mesh implant
Apr 25, 2019 | Medical Device Network
By Chloe Kent
Johnson & Johnson (J&J) subsidiary Ethicon has been ordered to pay $120m in damages by a Philadelphia court after it ruled that its negligently designed pelvic mesh implant caused a Pennsylvania woman to suffer from incontinence and chronic pain, Law360 has reported. -
Law360's Weekly Verdict: Legal Lions & Lambs
Apr 25, 2019 | Law 360
By Aebra Coe
Beck Redden LLP, Butler Snow LLP and Drinker Biddle & Reath LLP all ended up on the legal lambs list after a Philadelphia jury hammered their client, Johnson & Johnson unit Ethicon, with $120 million in damages Wednesday after agreeing that a negligently designed pelvic mesh implant left a woman all but incontinent and suffering from chronic pain that prevented her from having sex -
What’s the surgical pelvic mesh India is looking to ban, and why it’s risky
Apr 26, 2019 | The Print
By Himani Chandna
With India reviewing its stand on pelvic mesh after a US ban on the product, ThePrint explains what the implant device is and its health hazards. -
America has banned a group of problem pelvic mesh devices with origins in Australia in the 1980s
Apr 26, 2019 | Newcastle Herald
By Joanne McCarthy
AMERICAN regulators have banned a problem group of pelvic mesh devices nearly 18 years after they appeared on the market, and as the Australian doctor who invented one of the first of the US-approved problem devices faces professional misconduct proceedings in NSW. -
Mum killed herself after vaginal mesh made life unbearable
Apr 25, 2019 | Metro UK
By Zoe Drewett
Shelley Wills’ mother was in so much agony after a vaginal mesh operation she felt she had no choice but to take her own life. -
Investor lodges class action suit against Boston Scientific over U.S. mesh withdrawal
Apr 26, 2019 | Mass Davice
By Brad Perriello
A plaintiff purporting to represent Boston Scientific shareholders sued the company yesterday, alleging that it misled investors about the prospects for its pelvic mesh products ahead of an FDA order to halt all U.S. sales of the devices.
Client Attorney Privileged/Attorney Work Product/At Request of Counsel
Online Sources
-
Jury says J&J must pay $120 million in mesh injury case
Apr 25, 2019 | Reuters
By Nate Raymond
A state court jury in Philadelphia has ordered Johnson & Johnson to pay $120 million to a Pennsylvania woman who said she was severely injured by a negligently designed pelvic mesh implant made by the company’s Ethicon unit.
Wednesday’s verdict, which came following a three-week trial in the Philadelphia Court of Common Pleas, was the largest to result thus far from tens of thousands of lawsuits by women alleging J&J’s pelvic mesh devices have led to severe pain, urinary problems and other injuries.
To read the full story on WestlawNext Practitioner Insights, click here: bit.ly/2UWXjEP
https://www.reuters.com/article/products-johnsonjohnson/jury-says-jj-must-pay-120-million-in-mesh-injury-case-idUSL1N2271HT
-
J&J Unit Ethicon to Appeal $120 Million Pelvic Mesh Verdict
Apr 25, 2019 | Bloomberg Law
By Julie Steinberg
Largest mesh verdict against Ethicon
Product properly designed, company says
Johnson & Johnson unit Ethicon will appeal a $120 million verdict in a pelvic mesh case in Pennsylvania.
Susan McFarland was awarded $20 million in compensatory damages and $100 million in punitive damages April 24 by a jury in the Pennsylvania Court of Common Pleas, Philadelphia County.
The award is the largest mesh verdict against Ethicon, according to company spokeswoman Mindy Tinsley.
McFarland alleged she was severely injured by an Ethicon TVT-O mesh product. The product was placed in her...
Subscription required, for full story: https://news.bloomberglaw.com/product-liability-and-toxics-law/j-j-unit-ethicon-to-appeal-120-million-pelvic-mesh-verdict
-
Pennsylvania woman awarded $120 million in vaginal mesh case against Johnson & Johnson
Apr 25, 2019 | Philly.com
By Sam Wood
A subsidiary of Johnson & Johnson must pay $120 million to a Pennsylvania woman who was severely injured by vaginal mesh implanted to treat urinary incontinence.
A Philadelphia jury found that the J&J subsidiary, Ethicon, was negligent in the design of itsTVT-O device, a strip of plastic mesh that had eroded into the Altoona woman’s vagina.
Susan McFarland, 68, had the medical device implanted in 2008 and was left suffering from pelvic pain and chronic urinary tract infections. Surgery to remove the mesh failed to help, her lawyer said.
The $120 million verdict, which includes $100 million in punitive damages, is believed to be the largest to date in a vaginal mesh case, according to McFarland’s lead counsel, Tracie Palmer, of Kline & Specter.
“Susan is unable to have sex and hasn’t been able to since her implant 10 years ago,” Palmer said. "That is her main injury.
“The jury’s message to Johnson & Johnson is: ‘Take this product off the market for the health and safety of America’s women,’” Palmer said. “They could see the company had not taken responsibility for their actions.”
Mindy Tinsley, a spokeswoman for Johnson & Johnson’s Ethicon, said the company would appeal the verdict.
“While Ethicon empathizes with women who experience medical complications, this verdict and the damages awarded are inconsistent with the science, Ethicon’s actions, and previous verdicts related to our TVT-O product, which continues to be the gold standard of treatment for stress urinary incontinence,” Tinsley said in a statement.
“We believe the evidence showed Ethicon’s TVT-O device was properly designed and that Ethicon acted appropriately and responsibly in the research, development and marketing of the product. Unfortunately, the jury was not permitted to hear critical evidence related to the FDA’s review and classification of these devices, which we believe significantly influenced the verdict and punitive award in this case,” the statement concluded.
Palmer said McFarland is doing well, all things considered, and “still processing” her victory. She still suffers the original incontinence that the device was meant to cure. The jury took three hours to decide its verdict.
Kline & Specter attorneys won the previous six Philadelphia verdicts in vaginal mesh cases, including a verdict for $57.1 million and, in February, a $41 million verdict.
https://www.philly.com/business/health/vaginal-mesh-johnson-and-johnson-ethicon-philadelphia-mcfarland-kline-specter-20190425.html
-
Defense Win for J&J Subsidiary in Latest Pelvic Mesh Trial
Apr 26, 2019 | The Legal Intelligencer
By Max Mitchell
A Philadelphia jury has declined to hold Johnson & Johnson subsidiary Ethicon liable for injuries that a woman claimed she suffered as a result of the company’s allegedly defective pelvic mesh product.Krolikowski v. Ethicon Women’s Health and Urology
Defense Verdict
Date of Verdict: April 17.
Court and Case No.: C.P. Philadelphia No. 140102704.
Judge: Charles Cunningham III.
Type of Action: Products liability.
Injuries: Urinary incontinence, chronic pain.
Plaintiffs Counsel: Colin Burke, Elia Robertson, Kline & Specter, Philadelphia.
Defense Counsel: Sean Gallagher, Jeannie Tinkham, Bartlit Beck; Andrea La’Verne Edney, Butler Snow; Julie Callsen and Jennifer Steinmetz, Tucker Ellis; Melissa Merk and Eileen Somers, Drinker Biddle & Reath.
Comment:
A Philadelphia jury has declined to hold Johnson & Johnson subsidiary Ethicon liable for injuries that a woman claimed she suffered as a result of the company’s allegedly defective pelvic mesh product.
The defense win in Krolikowski v. Ethicon Women’s Health and Urology was handed up April 17 after more than three weeks of trial before Philadelphia Court of Common Pleas Judge Charles Cunningham III.
Plaintiffs suing in Philadelphia over Ethicon’s mesh products have repeatedly won multimillion-dollar verdicts, including a $41 million award in January. The verdict in Krolikowski marks only the second time a Philadelphia jury has found in favor of Ethicon over its pelvic mesh product, although the prior defense win was subsequently reversed by the trial court judge, a decision that is currently on appeal.
The plaintiff, Malgorzata Krolikowski, was represented by Kline & Specter attorneys Colin Burke and Elia Robertson. Ethicon was represented by Sean Gallagher and Jeannie Tinkham of Bartlit Beck and Butler Snow attorney Andrea La’Verne Edney, as well as Julie Callsen and Jennifer Steinmetz of Tucker Ellis and Melissa Merk and Eileen Somers of Drinker Biddle & Reath.
In an emailed statement Burke said the case presented unique challenges because of Krolikowski’s related medical issues and gaps in her medical coverage and treatment. He also noted that, although the jury found Ethicon’s conduct was not causally related to the injuries, the jury also determined that the company had failed to exercise due care in its design, marketing and sale of the mesh device.
Mindy Tinsley, a spokeswoman for Ethicon, said the evidence showed the company’s TVT-Secur device was properly designed and not the cause of the injuries.
“We empathize with women suffering from stress urinary incontinence, which can be a serious and debilitating condition,” Tinsley said in the statement. “There are various treatment choices for women with this condition seeking to improve their quality of life, including surgical treatment with implantable mesh, which is backed by years of clinical research and is considered by most doctors to be the gold standard treatment.”
Krolikowski’s was one of nearly 90 lawsuits pending in Philadelphia over claims that Ethicon negligently designed mesh products and failed to warn doctors and patients about the dangers. More than 10,000 suits are also pending against Ethicon in federal court over the same products.
The first pelvic mesh case in Philadelphia was tried in late 2015, and since then six cases have resulted in wins for plaintiffs, with awards ranging from $2.16 million to $57.1 million.
The only other case to come to a defense win was Adkins v. Ethicon. That case was handled by Bryan Aylstock of Aylstock, Witkin, Kreis & Overholtz. About a month after the win in that case, the judge who handled Adkins issued a one-page order granting Adkins’ posttrial motion, which had contended that the jury’s findings were inconsistent on the issue of whether the alleged design defect caused the injuries. The judge ultimately determined that the case should proceed to a damages hearing, but that decision is currently on appeal to the Pennsylvania Superior Court.
—Max Mitchell, of The Law Weekly
https://www.law.com/thelegalintelligencer/2019/04/25/defense-win-for-jj-subsidiary-in-latest-pelvic-mesh-trial/
-
Philadelphia Jury Slams J&J With $120M Pelvic Mesh Verdict
Apr 26, 2019 | The Legal Intelligencer
By Max Mitchell
The verdict came after a three-week trial in Judge Kenneth Powell's courtroom, and the award included $20 million in compensatory damages, as well as $100 million in punitive damages.
A Philadelphia jury has hit a Johnson & Johnson subsidiary with a $120 million verdict for allegedly failing to warn about the dangers of one of its pelvic mesh products.
The verdict came down Wednesday afternoon in Philadelphia Court of Common Pleas Judge Kenneth Powell’s courtroom after three weeks of trial, and included $20 million in compensatory damages, as well as $100 million in punitive damages.
The verdict marks the seventh time a Philadelphia jury has hit J&J subsidiary Ethicon with a multimillion-dollar verdict over one of its pelvic mesh products, and it also marks the first time a Philadelphia jury has awarded more than $100 million in a pelvic mesh case.
The plaintiff in the case, Susan McFarland, a 68-year-old from Altoona, had Ethicon’s TVT-O pelvic mesh product implanted in 2008 to treat urinary incontinence, but she claimed that the plastic eroded, causing pain and chronic uterine tract infections. She, as well as nearly 90 plaintiffs with claims pending in Philadelphia, contended that Ethicon failed to properly warn about the dangers of the product.
Kline & Specter Tracie Palmer was lead counsel for McFarland, along with Braden Lepisto.
“This verdict speaks volumes. This is a product still on the market and the jury’s message to Johnson and Johnson is take this product off the market for the health and safety of America’s women,” Palmer said.
Kate Skagerberg of Beck Redden was lead counsel for Ethicon. The company was also represented by Adam Spice of Butler Snow and Alicia Hickok of Drinker Biddle & Reath.
In an emailed statement, a spokeswoman for Ethicon said the award was “inconsistent with the science, Ethicon’s actions, and previous verdicts related to our TVT-O product, which continues to be the gold standard of treatment for stress urinary incontinence.”
“We believe the evidence showed Ethicon’s TVT-O device was properly designed and that Ethicon acted appropriately and responsibly in the research, development and marketing of the product. Unfortunately, the jury was not permitted to hear critical evidence related to the FDA’s review and classification of these devices, which we believe significantly influenced the verdict and punitive award in this case,” spokeswoman Mindy Tinsley said, adding that the company plans to appeal the verdict.
The case, McFarland v. Ethicon, was also subject to several efforts by Ethicon to have Powell removed from hearing any pelvic mesh cases.
In March, Ethicon, which is the primary defendant in the pelvic mesh mass tort in Philadelphia, made a motion, arguing that Powell needed to be removed from hearing any of the cases because his mother brought suit against another J&J subsidiary over the blood thinner Xarelto. According to the company, Powell failed to properly disclose his mother’s lawsuit until after he presided over one trial and was assigned to handle another.
Those efforts, however, were dismissed by the court.
The verdict in McFarland is the latest in a series of multimillion-dollar verdicts that Philadelphia juries have awarded plaintiffs in the pelvic mesh litigation, including Hammons v. Ethicon, which resulted in a $12.5 million verdict in 2015, and Emmett v. Ethicon, which ended in a $41 million verdict in January. The award, however, also came one week after a Philadelphia jury handed Ethicon a rare defense win.
https://www.law.com/thelegalintelligencer/2019/04/25/philadelphia-jury-slams-jj-with-120m-pelvic-mesh-verdict/
-
Apr 25, 2019 | PennRecord
By Nicholas Malfitano
PHILADELPHIA – After five years of litigation, a Philadelphia jury recently found in favor of Johnson & Johnson, one of its subsidiaries and partner companies, who were accused of manufacturing a pelvic mesh product that a plaintiff claimed caused her to suffer incontinence and other injuries.
Malgorzata Krolikowski of Media filed suit in the Philadelphia County Court of Common Pleas on Jan. 28, 2014 versus Ethicon, Johnson & Johnson Secant Medical and Prodesco, Inc.
In 2008, Krolikowski said she was suffering from stress urinary incontinence and as a result, was implanted with an Ethicon-brand TVT-Secur pelvic mesh device. However, the plaintiff stated in her suit that rather than improve, her incontinence condition worsened and she further developed severe vaginal pain that prevented her from engaging in sexual intercourse.
While the plaintiff and her counsel argued the corporate defendants rushed a dangerous and defective product for market sale to the public, defense attorneys countered that the companies were not liable or responsible for the device not alleviating Krolikowski’s condition.
A verdict was handed down last Wednesday, April 17.
Though the jury did not conclude the product caused Krolikowski’s injuries, it did find the company was negligent in its design and marketing of the device. The TVT-Secur pelvic mesh implant at issue in the case has not been sold since 2012.
Colin Burke of Kline & Specter, a member of counsel for Krolikowski, expressed “disappointment” but “respect” for the jury’s decision and looked forward to continuing to litigate future cases against the defendants, while a representative for Ethicon indicated the company was satisfied with the verdict.
“We empathize with women suffering from stress urinary incontinence, which can be a serious and debilitating condition. There are various treatment choices for women with this condition seeking to improve their quality of life, including surgical treatment with implantable mesh, which is backed by years of clinical research and is considered by most doctors to be the gold standard treatment,” said Ethicon spokeswoman Mindy Tinsley.
“The jury’s decision reflects the facts in this case. The evidence showed Ethicon’s TVT-Secur device was properly designed and did not cause the plaintiff’s alleged injuries.”
Though the ninth case tried in the Philadelphia County Court of Common Pleas, it was only the second time a Philadelphia jury sided with Ethicon in a pelvic mesh trial – though the other defense victory in Adkins v. Ethicon, Inc. Et.Al was overturned and now stands on appeal in the Superior Court of Pennsylvania.
Previously, plaintiffs had been mostly successful in winning multimillion-dollar jury verdicts in pelvic mesh cases in Philadelphia, with six total victories in court totaling almost $150 million – including one verdict in January of $41 million.
Nearly 100 similar pelvic mesh cases, in which plaintiffs charge Ethicon with manufacturing and marketing defective products causing serious injuries, remain active in the Philadelphia County Court of Common Pleas’s Complex Litigation Center. Federal courts nationwide also house in excess of 10,000 similar suits.
Philadelphia County Court of Common Pleas case 140102704
From the Pennsylvania Record: Reach Courts Reporter Nicholas Malfitano at nick.malfitano@therecordinc.com
https://pennrecord.com/stories/512451650-johnson-johnson-and-ethicon-prevail-over-plaintiff-who-claimed-product-related-injuries-in-pelvic-mesh-trial
-
Plaintiff wins $120m in latest pelvic mesh trial against Johnson & Johnson unit
Apr 26, 2019 | Mass Device
By Brad Perriello
A state court jury in Philadelphia reportedly slapped Johnson & Johnson (NYSE:JNJ) subsidiary Ethicon with a $120 million verdict yesterday in a product liability lawsuit brought over one of its pelvic mesh products.
The jury in the Pennsylvania Court of Common pleas awarded Susan McFarland $20 million in compensatory damages and $100 million in punitive damages after finding that Susan McFarland’s chronic pain, incontinence and lack of consortium were caused by the Gynecare TVT-O implanted in 2008 to treat her pelvic organ prolapse, according to media reports.
Another jury deadlocked after the McFarland case first went to trial last September; the retrial began in March but was halted after an expert witness’s heart attack, according to the reports.
“While Ethicon empathizes with women who experience medical complications, this verdict and the damages awarded are inconsistent with the science, Ethicon’s actions, and previous verdicts related to our TVT-O product, which continues to be the gold standard of treatment for stress urinary incontinence. We believe the evidence showed Ethicon’s TVT-O device was properly designed and that Ethicon acted appropriately and responsibly in the research, development and marketing of the product,” Johnson & Johnson spokeswoman Mindy Tinsley told MassDevice.com. “Unfortunately, the jury was not permitted to hear critical evidence related to the FDA’s review and classification of these devices, which we believe significantly influenced the verdict and punitive award in this case. We respect the legal process, but we want to reiterate that jury verdicts are not medical, scientific or regulatory conclusions about a product and Ethicon will appeal this verdict.”
It’s the seventh verdict to go against J&J in pelvic mesh trials, with total damages reportedly topping the $270 million mark. Last week the company logged a win after another jury in Philly found Ethicon not liable despite finding it negligent in the designing, marketing and sale of the device.
Earlier this month the FDA ordered the last two makers of pelvic mesh for organ prolapse in the U.S., Boston Scientific (NYSE:BSX) and Coloplast (CPH:COLO B), to immediately halt sales and distribution here.
https://www.massdevice.com/plaintiff-wins-120m-in-latest-pelvic-mesh-trial-against-johnson-johnson-unit/
-
US court orders J&J to pay $120m in damages over pelvic mesh implant
Apr 25, 2019 | Medical Device Network
By Chloe Kent
Johnson & Johnson (J&J) subsidiary Ethicon has been ordered to pay $120m in damages by a Philadelphia court after it ruled that its negligently designed pelvic mesh implant caused a Pennsylvania woman to suffer from incontinence and chronic pain, Law360 has reported.
Susan McFarland underwent surgery to fit Ethicon’s TVT-O transvaginal mesh implant in 2008 to treat urinary stress incontinence.
The poor design of the product meant it sawed through the soft tissue in McFarland’s pelvis and became exposed in her vagina, forcing her to undergo a second surgery to remove the device. She claims the chronic pain and complications she has been left with as a result of her surgeries have prevented her from having sex with her husband for the past decade.
This is the seventh jury verdict awarded to women who have suffered injuries from defective transvaginal mesh, and the largest among them by a significant benchmark – the second largest award reached $57.1m.
The TVT-O implant has been on the market since the 1990s, after spending only nine months in development and without any clinical studies conducted to determine its safety.
McFarland’s case first went to court in September 2018, but Ethicon were not initially prosecuted. While the jury agreed that the Ethicon’s transvaginal mesh panel had been negligently designed, jurors struggled to come to a conclusion regarding whether or not it was directly responsible for her injuries. The verdict fell in her favour in the 2019 retrial.
Kline & Specter PC attorney Tracie Palmer, who represented McFarland in court, said: “This is a product that’s on the market today and has been sold for a long time, and the jury simply wasn’t buying that that fact alone means that this is safe for women.
“They saw clearly that it hasn’t been the case for Susan McFarland and that she suffered grievously as a result of defendants’ irresponsible behaviour.”
Palmer had told jurors that the complications McFarland experienced as a result of the heavyweight textile used in the product are prevalent in patients treated with Ethicon’s transvaginal mesh.
“The mesh shrinks, it becomes tense and rigid, and then this rigid mesh can cut through the vaginal wall,” Palmer said. “It’s like a saw.”
Ethicon told Law360 that it is planning to launch an appeal and has argued that factors such as the natural atrophying of vaginal tissue with age could have led to McFarland’s pain.
Ethicon spokeswoman Mindy Tinsley said: “We believe the evidence showed Ethicon’s TVT-O device was properly designed and that Ethicon acted appropriately and responsibly in the research, development and marketing of the product.
“We respect the legal process, but we want to reiterate that jury verdicts are not medical, scientific or regulatory conclusions about a product and Ethicon will appeal this verdict.”
This verdict comes shortly following a decision by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) to ban the selling and distributing of transvaginal surgical mesh in the country following safety concerns.
-
Law360's Weekly Verdict: Legal Lions & Lambs
Apr 25, 2019 | Law 360
By Aebra Coe
Lewis Brisbois and Mayer Brown were this week’s top legal lions with a win at the U.S. Supreme Court for a client fighting a data breach class action, while Drinker Biddle ended up on the legal lambs list after a jury slammed client J&J with $120 million in damages.
Legal Lions
In a big victory for Lewis Brisbois Bisgaard & Smith LLP and Mayer Brown LLP, the U.S. Supreme Court on Wednesday ruled that arbitration agreements must explicitly call for class arbitration for that process to be invoked, handing client Lamps Plus Inc. a win in its challenge of a Ninth Circuit ruling that allowed a worker's data breach class arbitration to move forward. Lamps Plus is represented by Andrew Pincus, Archis Parasharami, Daniel Jones and Donald Falk of Mayer Brown LLP and Jeffrey Miller, Eric Kizirian, Michael Grimaldi and Brittany Sutton of Lewis Brisbois Bisgaard & Smith LLP.
Next up on the legal lions list are Altshuler Berzon LLP and Todd & Weld LLP. A Massachusetts appeals court on Wednesday handed a win to the law firms’ clients, the Winklevoss twins, upholding the dismissal of a suit by a fellow social media software developer who said he was owed half of their $65 million Facebook settlement consisting of company stock and $20 million in cash. The Winklevosses are represented by Michael Rubin and Matthew Murray of Altshuler Berzon LLP and Max D. Stern of Todd & Weld LLP.
Winston & Strawn LLP scored a lion-sized win April 19 when a New York federal judge dismissed a $5 million proposed class action against its client, Rachael Ray's dog food company, that claimed the food's "natural" label was misleading because it contains the weed killer glyphosate. Rachael Ray Nutrish is represented by Ronald Y. Rothstein, Christopher Hynes and Adrianne K. Rosenbluth of Winston & Strawn LLP.
A Los Angeles judge on Monday sided with arguments made by Browne George Ross LLP and ordered Michael Avenatti to pay his former legal partner Jason Frank’s $60,000 in attorney fees after the lawyer won an order requiring Avenatti to pay him $4.85 million for work he did at their former firm Eagan Avenatti LLP. Frank is represented by Eric George, Jacob Sarabian, Ira Bibberoand Benjamin D. Scheibe of Browne George Ross LLP.
Legal Lambs
Beck Redden LLP, Butler Snow LLP and Drinker Biddle & Reath LLP all ended up on the legal lambs list after a Philadelphia jury hammered their client, Johnson & Johnson unit Ethicon, with $120 million in damages Wednesday after agreeing that a negligently designed pelvic mesh implant left a woman all but incontinent and suffering from chronic pain that prevented her from having sex. Ethicon is represented by Kate Skagerberg of Beck Redden LLP, Adam Spicer, Paul Rosenblatt and Jordan Walker of Butler Snow LLP, and D. Alicia Hickok, Kenneth Murphy and Melissa Merk of Drinker Biddle & Reath LLP.
Honeywell was smacked with a $4.4 million verdict April 19 after a jury found that asbestos supplied by the company as filler for bowling balls caused a former bowling alley owner’s mesothelioma and death, landing the company’s attorneys at McDermott Will & Emery LLP a spot among the legal lambs. Honeywell is represented by Jennifer Filippazzo and Steve Hoeft of McDermott Will & Emery LLP.
Next up on the lambs list is the Smith Law Firm. A Fifth Circuit panel said April 19 that federal workplace discrimination law does not block employers from firing straight workers because of their sexuality, ruling against the law firm’s client Bonnie O’Daniel and refusing to budge from its stance that Title VII of the Civil Rights Act does not cover sexual orientation. O’Daniel is represented by J. Arthur Smith of the Smith Law Firm.
The Eleventh Circuit on April 19 threw out a class action accusing Geico of under-reimbursing health care providers for their services, holding that the lead plaintiff — represented by Zebersky Payne Shaw Lewenz LLP — lacked standing to bring the suit in the first place. Gerber is represented by Edward Zebersky and Mark S. Fistos of Zebersky Payne Shaw Lewenz LLP.
A California federal judge on Tuesday barred non-class attorney James B. Feinman from pursuing a $1.5 million lien against Volkswagen AG in Virginia state court to recover unpaid attorney fees, saying his claims are encompassed in the automaker’s $10 billion deal that resolved multidistrict litigation over its emissions cheating. During a hearing in San Francisco, U.S. District Judge Charles R. Breyer said Volkswagen's 2016 settlement releases the company of state claims brought by Feinman against Volkswagen for attorney fees.
--Additional reporting by Matt Fair, Mike Curley, Braden Campbell, Jeff Sistrunk, Dorothy Atkins, Vin Gurrieri, Chris Villani and Lauren Berg. Editing by Kelly Duncan.https://www.law360.com/legalindustry/articles/1153581/law360-s-weekly-verdict-legal-lions-lambs
-
What’s the surgical pelvic mesh India is looking to ban, and why it’s risky
Apr 26, 2019 | The Print
By Himani Chandna
With India reviewing its stand on pelvic mesh after a US ban on the product, ThePrint explains what the implant device is and its health hazards.
New Delhi: US health watchdog Food and Drug Administration (FDA) last week banned the sale of pelvic surgical mesh meant for women. Triggered by the move, the Indian regulator is also considering a ban on sales based on the availability of device and import history.
However, the device is not a newly-discovered culprit. It has been under the scanner since 2008 when the USFDA started noticing a spurt in complications related to the device.
Even a Netflix documentary released in 2018, The Bleeding Edge, highlighted the injuries caused by the implant. It also featured prominently in ‘Implant Files’, a global investigation series by the International Consortium of Investigative Journalists, published in November last year.
In the US, seven mesh manufacturers, including Boston Scientific and Johnson & Johnson, are paying almost $8 billion (Rs 56,000 crore) to resolve the claims of more than 100,000 women, reported The New York Times.
With the Indian authorities reviewing their stand on the device, ThePrint explains pelvic mesh implants and their health hazards.
https://theprint.in/theprint-essential/whats-the-surgical-pelvic-mesh-india-is-looking-to-ban-and-why-its-risky/227234/
-
America has banned a group of problem pelvic mesh devices with origins in Australia in the 1980s
Apr 26, 2019 | Newcastle Herald
By Joanne McCarthy
Joanne McCarthy
AMERICAN regulators have banned a problem group of pelvic mesh devices nearly 18 years after they appeared on the market, and as the Australian doctor who invented one of the first of the US-approved problem devices faces professional misconduct proceedings in NSW.
The American Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has ordered all remaining manufacturers to immediately stop selling and distributing prolapse mesh devices because of safety and efficacy concerns, and after billions of dollars in damages claims by thousands of women in America, Australia, the United Kingdom and Europe.
The ban comes 18 years after the FDA approved an Australian-invented mesh device to treat prolapse, a complication after childbirth, only months after Australian reviewers in February, 2001 found no "good quality evidence to determine the safety and efficacy" of the device procedure.
The American approval allowed multiple prolapse device kits on the global market without clinical trials over the following decade under the FDA's controversial device approval system, including at least one Johnson & Johnson device cited in a class action by 1000 Australian women against the company.
Mesh devices implanted transvaginally (via the vagina) were marketed in American from 2001 as quicker and with less complications than traditional abdominal surgery. In 2010 alone 75,000 American women were implanted with transvaginal prolapse mesh devices, while more than 200,000 were implanted with transvaginal incontinence mesh devices.
A Senate inquiry in 2017 was told about 150,000 prolapse and incontinence devices have been sold in Australia.
https://www.theherald.com.au/story/6086959/the-era-of-medical-mesh-is-over-as-the-us-bans-devices-18-years-after-fda-approved-them/
-
Mum killed herself after vaginal mesh made life unbearable
Apr 25, 2019 | Metro UK
By Zoe Drewett
Shelley Wills’ mother was in so much agony after a vaginal mesh operation she felt she had no choice but to take her own life.
Susan Moxey died by suicide in 2005 at the age of 59, around six years after she had mesh implant surgery after suffering a prolapse.
Shelly, 52, who was heavily pregnant with her son Leo when her mother died, said Susan made ‘countless’ suicide attempts in the years after her implant.
In a note she left for Shelley, Susan said ‘the operation went wrong’.
Susan had constantly complained about the excruciating pain she was in but was repeatedly told she had somatisation disorder – now referred to as Functional Neurological Disorders (FNDs) – by doctors.
FNDs are symptoms in the body which appear to be caused by problems in the nervous system but which are not caused by a physical neurological disease or disorder.
They are classed as mental health conditions and are sometimes referred to as ‘medically unexplained’ disorders.
Shelley says that while Susan was diagnosed with a mental illness, her fears over the physical symptoms of her mesh were never acknowledged.
Shelley, who lives in Dorset, said: ‘She was told she was mentally ill basically, she never got any sort of explanation or anyone who would even look into whether the mesh operation had gone wrong.
‘We never believed it, we always thought there was something more that wasn’t being investigated. She was made to feel like a crazy person.’
Susan had her operation around 1998 and in the years up until her death, had no idea there were other women going through the same pain she was.
Shelley said: ‘She was a guinea pig for the implant, it was very new. It wasn’t until it all came out in the media in the last year or so that we realised what mum was saying was all true.
‘There were and still are women going through what she went through, because of the mesh.
‘She was right and she wasn’t alone. Knowing that would have meant a huge deal to her.’
Shelley wanted to share her mother’s story for all the women who are still suffering with the mesh implant today.
‘My mum wasn’t suicidal because she wanted to leave us, she just needed to shut the pain off,’ Shelley said.
‘This one operation took her life and all our lives with it. There are still women who suffer today because of the same thing.
‘I wrote about my mum on Facebook and I got 200 replies from women saying they had gone through the same as her. Someone sent me a private message to say a doctor told them they had somatisation too.
‘I can’t believe this is still happening.’
Susan lost a huge amount of weight after the implant, she had to give up her job and it badly affected her relationship and social life.
She once stabbed herself in the stomach, telling her family it was where the pain was it its worst.
Shelley said: ‘She could hardly walk. She had pelvic pain, back pain, hip pain. She used to complain that the mesh “felt too tight”.
‘It was constantly on her mind, she was fixated on it.’
Shelley is a member of Sling the Mesh, a campaign group aimed at raising awareness of the dangers of mesh implant surgery.
Sling the Mesh provides support and advice for those who have been left in excruciating pain after being fitted with mesh implants.
It is calling for the UK government to follow New Zealand, Scotland and the US in banning all mesh implant surgery.
An independent review into the mesh – led by Baroness Julia Cumberlege – publishes its findings later this year.
Earlier this year, mesh removal operations were stopped at a London hospital until further notice because of a ‘tsunami’ of applications for the service.
The operation, carried out by surgeon Suzy Elneil at University College London Hospital (UCLH), was described as a ‘lifeline’ for the women suffering due to the mesh.
Shelley says she knows of huge numbers of women who have now received letters telling them their removal operations have been cancelled until further notice.
Labour MP Owen Smith, who chairs the All Party Parliamentary Group into mesh implants, said at the time: ‘Suzy Elneil has been a lifeline for women and it will be distressing for many to learn that they won’t be able to be referred throughout 2019.
‘What this reveals, however, is the widespread lack of support and treatment options for women, both those needing mesh to be removed and those requiring alternative treatment for prolapse or incontinence.’
Sling the Mesh will be holding a rally outside UCLH on May 9 in Euston Road, London, against the decision to halt vaginal mesh removal operations.
The rally takes place between 12pm and 2pm, visit the Sling the Meshwebsite for more information.
https://metro.co.uk/2019/04/25/mum-killed-vaginal-mesh-made-life-unbearable-9317825/
-
Investor lodges class action suit against Boston Scientific over U.S. mesh withdrawal
Apr 26, 2019 | Mass Davice
By Brad Perriello
A plaintiff purporting to represent Boston Scientific shareholders sued the company yesterday, alleging that it misled investors about the prospects for its pelvic mesh products ahead of an FDA order to halt all U.S. sales of the devices.
Last week the FDA ordered an immediate halt to sales and distribution of Boston’s Uphold Lite and Xenform products; over the next two days investors sent its share price into a tailspin. By the time the markets closed April 17, BSX shares were off some 7.7% to $34.91 apiece (the stock was trading at $36.63 per share, up 3.4%, in early afternoon trading today).
The lawsuit, filed by lead plaintiff Steve Klein in the U.S. District Court for Southern New York, seeks class certification for anyone who owned Boston Scientific shares between February 26, 2015, and April 16 of this year.
“Throughout the class period, defendants made materially false and misleading statements regarding the company’s business, operational and compliance policies. Specifically, defendants made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (i) Boston Scientific’s surgical mesh products indicated for the transvaginal repair of [pelvic organ prolapse] were unsafe; (ii) accordingly, Boston Scientific’s continued marketing and sales of these devices in the United States was unlikely to be sustainable; (iii) separately, the company had sold vaginal mesh implants containing counterfeit or adulterated resin products imported from China; (iv) the foregoing conduct subjected the company to a heightened risk of regulatory scrutiny and/or government investigations; and (v) as a result, the company’s public statements were materially false and misleading at all relevant times,” the lawsuit alleged.
In addition to class-action status, the suit seeks damages, pre- and post-judgment interest and plus legal costs, according to the complaint.
https://www.massdevice.com/investor-lodges-class-action-suit-against-boston-scientific-over-u-s-mesh-withdrawal/
Client Attorney Privileged/Attorney Work Product/At Request of Counsel
Online Sources
Add recipients
Suggested