Archive for category Transvaginal Mesh

Five Boston Scientific Mesh Cases Remanded for Trial in Florida

On April 11, 2014, Judge Joseph Goodwin consolidated five Boston Scientific mesh cases and set them for trial on September 29, 2014 in Southern District of Florida.

The cases are:

Eghnayem v. Boston Scientific Corporation, 2:13-cv-07965

Dotres v. Boston Scientific Corporation, 2:13-cv-10077

Nunez v. Boston Scientific Corporation, 2:13-cv-24346

Dubois-Jean v. Boston Scientific Corporation, 2:14-cv-04455, and

Betancourt v. Boston Scientific Corporation, 2:14-cv-11337

No Judge has been assigned yet.

Vaginal Mesh Trial History

Bard has lost two jury trials, settled a third case after a jury selected, and settled a fourth before trial commenced.  In July 2012, a California jury awarded Christine Scott and her husband $5.5 million after she underwent nine revision surgeries.  Scott sued C.R. Bard in 2009 over its Avaulta Plus mesh product.

In February 2013, Linda Gross won $11.11 million in her lawsuit against Johnson & Johnson’s Ethicon brand over its Prolift vaginal mesh product.  Gross had 18 surgeries.  The New Jersey jury found that J&J failed to warn patients and doctors about the risks of its mesh products and made fraudulent misrepresentations.

On August 15, 2013, after about 12 hours of deliberation, the jury found for Donna Cisson in her vaginal mesh trial against manufacturer C.R. Bard Inc, and found damages in the amount of $250,000 and $1.75 million in punitive damages.  The jury found that Bard failed to provide adequate warnings as to the defects in its vaginal mesh product and that the device was defective.  Judge Joseph Goodwin upheld the 2 million verdict in October 2013 as appropriate and that Cisson’s attorneys proved the company’s vaginal mesh was the cause of her injuries.  In Queen vs. Bard, starting trial immediately after Cisson, a settlement was reached after the jury was selected.  Finally, Bard settled Melanie Virgil’s claims that Bard’s Avaulta Plus insert caused urinary problems before trial commenced in New Jersey.

On February 18, 2014, Judge Joseph Goodwin granted Ethicon’s Motion for Directed Verdict at the close of Plaintiff’s case in Lewis vs. Ethicon, Inc. (In Re: Ethicon, Inc., Pelvic Repair System Products Liability Litigation, MDL Docket No. 2327, Carolyn Lewis, et al. v. Johnson & Johnson, et al., No. 2:12-4301, S.D. W.Va.).

On April 4, 2014, a Dallas jury found for the plaintiff Linda Batiste and ordered Johnson & Johnson to pay $1.2 million for its defective design of the Ethicon TVT-O pelvic mesh.

If you would like more information, check the video below, go to our website, or contact us at 1-800-481-1615 or email us.

, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Leave a comment

Dallas Jury Awards $1.2 Million Verdict Against Johnson and Johnson’s Ethicon

In another victory for plaintiffs against vaginal-mesh implant manufacturers, a Dallas jury found for the plaintiff Linda Batiste and ordered Johnson & Johnson to pay $1.2 million in compensatory damages.  The jury declined to award punitive damages. (Batiste v. McNabb, No. 12-14350, District Court for the 95th Judicial District, Dallas County Texas (Dallas)).

Click here to read the full Bloomberg article: J&J Must Pay Damages in Mesh Incontinence Implant Verdict Loss

The jury found that 64-year-old Linda Batiste was implanted with a defectively designed Johnson & Johnson Ethicon TVT-O pelvic mesh.  As a result of the defective device, Batiste suffered severe pelvic pain.  The jury also found that Ethicon properly issued notification of known risks related to the implant, rejecting Batiste’s claims that Ethicon did not provide proper warnings about the slings’ health risks.

Johnson & Johnson already stated it plans to appeal the verdict.

Vaginal Mesh Trial History

Bard has lost two jury trials, settled a third case after a jury selected, and settled a fourth before trial commenced.  In July 2012, a California jury awarded Christine Scott and her husband $5.5 million after she underwent nine revision surgeries.  Scott sued C.R. Bard in 2009 over its Avaulta Plus mesh product.

In February 2013, Linda Gross won $11.11 million in her lawsuit against Johnson & Johnson’s Ethicon brand over its Prolift vaginal mesh product.  Gross had 18 surgeries.  The New Jersey jury found that J&J failed to warn patients and doctors about the risks of its mesh products and made fraudulent misrepresentations.

On August 15, 2013, after about 12 hours of deliberation, the jury found for Donna Cisson in her vaginal mesh trial against manufacturer C.R. Bard Inc, and found damages in the amount of $250,000 and $1.75 million in punitive damages.  The jury found that Bard failed to provide adequate warnings as to the defects in its vaginal mesh product and that the device was defective.  Judge Joseph Goodwin upheld the 2 million verdict in October 2013 as appropriate and that Cisson’s attorneys proved the company’s vaginal mesh was the cause of her injuries.  In Queen vs. Bard, starting trial immediately after Cisson, a settlement was reached after the jury was selected.  Finally, Bard settled Melanie Virgil’s claims that Bard’s Avaulta Plus insert caused urinary problems before trial commenced in New Jersey.

On February 18, 2014, Judge Joseph Goodwin granted Ethicon’s Motion for Directed Verdict at the close of Plaintiff’s case in Lewis vs. Ethicon, Inc. (In Re: Ethicon, Inc., Pelvic Repair System Products Liability Litigation, MDL Docket No. 2327, Carolyn Lewis, et al. v. Johnson & Johnson, et al., No. 2:12-4301, S.D. W.Va.).

If you would like more information, check the video below, go to our website, or contact us at 1-800-481-1615 or email us.

Trademark Notice

Johnson & Johnson is a registered trademark of Johnson & Johnson Inc. The use of this trademark is solely for product identification and informational purposes. Johnson & Johnson Inc. is not affiliated with this website, and Johnson & Johnson Inc. has no affiliation with the Brandi Law Firm. Nothing on this site has been authorized or approved by Johnson & Johnson Inc.

 

Leave a comment

Court Sets Key Dates Leading to Trial in Boston Scientific Vaginal Mesh Cases

Judge Joseph Goodwin set the following key dates for the run up to trial in the vaginal mesh cases vs Boston Scientific currently set for October 14, 2014. Pretrial Order 87 provides as follows:

Plaintiffs shall serve expert reports by 5/11/2014 and provide proposed deposition dates to occur by 7/1/2014;

Defendants shall serve expert reports by 6/1/2014 and provide proposed deposition dates to occur by 8/1/2014;

Plaintiffs shall serve rebuttal expert reports by 7/1/2014;

Written discovery due 6/13/2014;

Expert discovery due 8/1/2014;

Case-specific discovery due 7/28/2014;

Setting forth motions practice; deposition designations due 9/23/2014, objections due 10/3/2014, counter-designations due 10/10/2014;

Exhibit and witness lists due 10/3/2014;

Proposed integrated pretrial order due three days prior to pretrial conference;

Pretrial and settlement conference set 9:00 a.m.

10/2/2014; proposed jury instructions w/proposed verdict form due 10/10/2014;

Trial set 8:30 a.m. 10/14/2014.

Vaginal Mesh Trial History

Bard has lost two jury trials, settled a third case after a jury selected, and settled a fourth before trial commenced.  In July 2012, a California jury awarded Christine Scott and her husband $5.5 million after she underwent nine revision surgeries.  Scott sued C.R. Bard in 2009 over its Avaulta Plus mesh product.

In February 2013, Linda Gross won $11.11 million in her lawsuit against Johnson & Johnson’s Ethicon brand over its Prolift vaginal mesh product.  Gross had 18 surgeries.  The New Jersey jury found that J&J failed to warn patients and doctors about the risks of its mesh products and made fraudulent misrepresentations.

On August 15, 2013, after about 12 hours of deliberation, the jury found for Donna Cisson in her vaginal mesh trial against manufacturer C.R. Bard Inc, and found damages in the amount of $250,000 and $1.75 million in punitive damages.  The jury found that Bard failed to provide adequate warnings as to the defects in its vaginal mesh product and that the device was defective.  Judge Joseph Goodwin upheld the 2 million verdict in October 2013 as appropriate and that Cisson’s attorneys proved the company’s vaginal mesh was the cause of her injuries.  In Queen vs. Bard, starting trial immediately after Cisson, a settlement was reached after the jury was selected.  Finally, Bard settled Melanie Virgil’s claims that Bard’s Avaulta Plus insert caused urinary problems before trial commenced in New Jersey.

On February 18, 2014, Judge Joseph Goodwin granted Ethicon’s Motion for Directed Verdict at the close of Plaintiff’s case in Lewis vs. Ethicon, Inc. (In Re: Ethicon, Inc., Pelvic Repair System Products Liability Litigation, MDL Docket No. 2327, Carolyn Lewis, et al. v. Johnson & Johnson, et al., No. 2:12-4301, S.D. W.Va.).

Our office represents women who have suffered horribly from these mesh products. We remain committed to representing them to a successful conclusion of their cases.

If you would like more information, check the video below, go to our website, or contact us at 1-800-481-1615 or email us.

, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Leave a comment

J&J and the Destroyed Records in Vaginal Mesh Cases

On February 4, 2014, Federal Magistrate Judge Cheryl Eifert found that Johnson and Johnson lost or destroyed thousands of documents and computer files dating back to 2007 related to development of J&J’s Gynecare Prolift and TVT Retropubic meshes. At the time, current J&J CEO Alex Gorsky was the head of the Ethicon Subsidiary responsible for the vaginal mesh implants.

CEO Alex Gorsky

CEO Alex Gorsky

Click here to read the full article: Women Suing J&J Over Pelvic Implant Injuries Allege It Destroyed Documents, Seek US Probe

However, Federal Magistrate Cheryl Eifert stopped short of finding the PHARMA giant did so intentionally, holding instead the destruction was negligent. (In Re Ethicon Pelvic Repair System Products Liability Litigation, 12-MD-02327, U.S. District Court, Southern District of West Virginia (Charleston)). There are currently over 11,000 lawsuits pending against Johnson & Johnson’s Ethicon division, which manufactured the Gynecare Prolift and TVT Retropubic meshes. The cases are part of the thousands before U.S. District Court Judge Joseph Goodwin at the U.S. District Court, Southern District of West Virginia. Suits have been filed against J&J, Bard, Endo Health Solutions Inc., and Boston Scientific Corp.

In ruling against Johnson & Johnson, the court noted that the obligation to preserve evidence arises when “litigation is reasonably anticipated.” If a company fails to do so, a court may impose sanctions ranging from monetary penalties to prohibiting the company from making certain arguments at trial. According to the court’s order, Johnson & Johnson’s efforts to preserve documents were “riddled with holes” and “failed miserably in certain instances.”

J&J stopped selling four vaginal mesh products in the face of the massive suits in 2012.  Also in 2012, FDA asserted that the company sold Gynecare Prolift for three years even though it didn’t have the right regulatory approval to do so.  In 2012, the FDA ordered CR Bard Inc and 31 other vaginal mesh implant makers to study rates of organ damage and complications linked to implants.

Patient Advocacy Group Asks For Federal Investigation

On March 26, 2014, a patient advocacy consumer group called the Corporate Action Network filed a complaint with the Department of Justice asking for an investigation into whether J&J and its executives including CEO Alex Gorsky deliberately destroyed the records. In its letter the group asked Attorney General Eric Holder:

“We respectfully request that you investigate Johnson and Johnson, Inc. and its top executives including Chairman and CEO, Alex Gorsky, for two possible criminal violations: first, for obstruction of a criminal investigation of health care offenses in apparent violation of 18 U.S.C. Section 1518 and second, for destruction of documents in apparent violation of 18 U.S.C. Section 1519. This request follows the recent discovery of document destruction by Johnson and Johnson as related to lawsuits brought against them by thousands of women across the United States who have been seriously injured by the corporation’s pelvic mesh implants”.

Vaginal Mesh Trial History

Bard has lost two jury trials, settled a third case after a jury selected, and settled a fourth before trial commenced.  In July 2012, a California jury awarded Christine Scott and her husband $5.5 million after she underwent nine revision surgeries.  Scott sued C.R. Bard in 2009 over its Avaulta Plus mesh product.

In February 2013, Linda Gross won $11.11 million in her lawsuit against Johnson & Johnson’s Ethicon brand over its Prolift vaginal mesh product.  Gross had 18 surgeries.  The New Jersey jury found that J&J failed to warn patients and doctors about the risks of its mesh products and made fraudulent misrepresentations.

On August 15, 2013, after about 12 hours of deliberation, the jury found for Donna Cisson in her vaginal mesh trial against manufacturer C.R. Bard Inc, and found damages in the amount of $250,000 and $1.75 million in punitive damages.  The jury found that Bard failed to provide adequate warnings as to the defects in its vaginal mesh product and that the device was defective.  Judge Joseph Goodwin upheld the 2 million verdict in October 2013 as appropriate and that Cisson’s attorneys proved the company’s vaginal mesh was the cause of her injuries.  In Queen vs. Bard, starting trial immediately after Cisson, a settlement was reached after the jury was selected.  Finally, Bard settled Melanie Virgil’s claims that Bard’s Avaulta Plus insert caused urinary problems before trial commenced in New Jersey.

On February 18, 2014, Judge Joseph Goodwin granted Ethicon’s Motion for Directed Verdict at the close of Plaintiff’s case in Lewis vs. Ethicon, Inc. (In Re: Ethicon, Inc., Pelvic Repair System Products Liability Litigation, MDL Docket No. 2327, Carolyn Lewis, et al. v. Johnson & Johnson, et al., No. 2:12-4301, S.D. W.Va.).

Our office represents women who have suffered horribly from these mesh products. We remain committed to representing them to a successful conclusion of their cases.

If you would like more information, check the video below, go to our website, or contact us at 1-800-481-1615 or email us.

, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Leave a comment

Coloplast Reportedly Settles 400 Transvaginal Mesh Cases

Coloplast CorporateThere are approximately 29,000 mesh cases pending against Johnson & Johnson, C.R. Bard, Boston Scientific, Cook Medical Systems and Endo Health Solutions before Judge Joseph Goodwin in West Virginia.  Reportedly, settlement talks are ongoing in some form with some of the defendants, with only Johnson& Johnson not participating.  As the cases move to trial, transvaginal mesh manufacturer Coloplast has reportedly agreed to settle 400 cases for 16 million.  (MDL No. 2387 In Re Coloplast Corp. Pelvic Support Systems Products Liability Litigation)  The terms have not been disclosed.  Coloplast is a worldwide company employing over 8000 people

Coloplast made Novasilk Synthetic Flat Mesh, Restorelle Smartmesh, and Exair mesh for POP (pelvic organ prolapse) and five products for SUI (stress urinary incontinence): Aris Transobdurator (TOT) sling, Minitape sling, Omnisure Sling, Supris Suprabic Sling, and T-Sling with Centrasorb.

It is not known what products are subject to the reported settlement.

Click here to read the full article: Coloplast Settles Hundreds of Vaginal Mesh Lawsuits for $16M

In June 2013, Endo Health agreed to a $54 million settlement involving an unknown number of claimants.  According to regulatory filings, Endo Health Solutions is building a stockpile of cash in the amount of $520 million increasing reserves to cover expected fallout from the pelvic mesh litigation.  Endo disclosed in a regulatory filing that the amount of money could increase due to the growing lawsuits and the ultimate outcome.

Vaginal Mesh Trial History

On February 18, 2014, Judge Joseph Goodwin granted Ethicon’s Motion for Directed Verdict at the close of Plaintiff’s case in Lewis vs. Ethicon, Inc.

Bard has lost two jury trials, settled a third case after a jury selected, and settled a fourth before trial commenced.  In July 2012, a California jury awarded Christine Scott and her husband $5.5 million after she underwent nine revision surgeries.  Scott sued C.R. Bard in 2009 over its Avaulta Plus mesh product.

In February 2013, Linda Gross won $11.11 million in her lawsuit against Johnson & Johnson’s Ethicon brand over its Prolift vaginal mesh product.  Gross had 18 surgeries.  The New Jersey jury found that J&J failed to warn patients and doctors about the risks of its mesh products and made fraudulent misrepresentations.

On August 15, 2013, after about 12 hours of deliberation, the jury found for Donna Cisson in her vaginal mesh trial against manufacturer C.R. Bard Inc, and found damages in the amount of $250,000 and $1.75 million in punitive damages.  The jury found that Bard failed to provide adequate warnings as to the defects in its vaginal mesh product and that the device was defective.  Judge Joseph Goodwin upheld the 2 million verdict in October 2013 as appropriate and that Cisson’s attorneys proved the company’s vaginal mesh was the cause of her injuries.  In Queen vs. Bard, starting trial immediately after Cisson, a settlement was reached after the jury was selected.  Finally, Bard settled Melanie Virgil’s claims that Bard’s Avaulta Plus insert caused urinary problems before trial commenced in New Jersey.

Our office represents women who have suffered horribly from these mesh products.  We remain committed to representing them to a successful conclusion of their cases.

If you would like more information, check the video below, go to our website, or contact us at 1-800-481-1615 or email us.

, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Leave a comment

Endo Health Solutions Saving $520 Million to Fund Transvaginal Mesh Lawsuits While Settling Off Label Marketing Claims for Lidoderm

AMSIn 2011, Endo Health Solutions bought American Medical Systems, one of the manufacturers who is currently embroiled in the transvaginal mesh litigation, with over 5,000 pending lawsuits before Judge Joseph Goodwin.  In 2008, women who used these devices began filing suits against American Medical Systems.  In 2013, Endo agreed to pay some $54.5 million toward settling some of the pending suits.

According to regulatory filings, Endo Health Solutions is building a stockpile of cash in the amount of $520 million increasing reserves to cover expected fallout from the pelvic mesh litigation.  Endo disclosed in a regulatory filing that the amount of money could increase due to the growing lawsuits and the ultimate outcome.

Click here to read the full article: Endo is Stocking up at Least $520M to Cover Vaginal Mesh Lawsuit Legal Costs

On the same day, Endo also announced it is settling with the Department of Justice for $192.7 million to resolve criminal and civil liability allegations brought by whistleblowers pertaining to claims it marketed Lidoderm, a patch approved to treat shingles pain, for off label uses including pain from diabetic neuropathy and carpal tunnel syndrome.  The resolution includes a deferred prosecution agreement and forfeiture totaling $20.8 million and civil false claims settlements with the federal government and the states and the District of Columbia totaling $171.9 million.  In a deferred prosecution agreement to resolve the charge, Endo Pharmaceuticals Inc. admitted that it intended that Lidoderm be used for unapproved indications and that it promoted Lidoderm to health care providers for those unapproved indications.  The government alleged that, from March 1999 through December 2007, Endo caused false claims to be submitted to federal health care programs, including Medicaid, a jointly funded federal and state program, by promoting Lidoderm for unapproved uses, some of which were not medically accepted indications and, therefore, were not covered by the federal health care programs.  Of the $171.9 million Endo has agreed to pay to resolve these civil claims, Endo will pay $137.7 million to the federal government and $34.2 million to the states and the District of Columbia.

Click here to read the full FiercePharma article: Endo Pharmaceuticals and Endo Health Solutions to Pay $192.7 Million to Resolve Criminal and Civil Liability Relating to Marketing of Prescription Drug Lidoderm for Unapproved Uses

Vaginal Mesh Trial History

On February 18, 2014, Judge Joseph Goodwin granted Ethicon’s Motion for Directed Verdict at the close of Plaintiff’s case in Lewis vs. Ethicon, Inc.

Bard has lost two jury trials, settled a third case after a jury selected, and settled a fourth before trial commenced.  In July 2012, a California jury awarded Christine Scott and her husband $5.5 million after she underwent nine revision surgeries.  Scott sued C.R. Bard in 2009 over its Avaulta Plus mesh product.

In February 2013, Linda Gross won $11.11 million in her lawsuit against Johnson & Johnson’s Ethicon brand over its Prolift vaginal mesh product.  Gross had 18 surgeries.  The New Jersey jury found that J&J failed to warn patients and doctors about the risks of its mesh products and made fraudulent misrepresentations.

On August 15, 2013, after about 12 hours of deliberation, the jury found for Donna Cisson in her vaginal mesh trial against manufacturer C.R. Bard Inc, and found damages in the amount of $250,000 and $1.75 million in punitive damages.  The jury found that Bard failed to provide adequate warnings as to the defects in its vaginal mesh product and that the device was defective.  Judge Joseph Goodwin upheld the 2 million verdict in October 2013 as appropriate and that Cisson’s attorneys proved the company’s vaginal mesh was the cause of her injuries.  In Queen vs. Bard, starting trial immediately after Cisson, a settlement was reached after the jury was selected.  Finally, Bard settled Melanie Virgil’s claims that Bard’s Avaulta Plus insert caused urinary problems before trial commenced in New Jersey.

Our office represents women who have suffered horribly from these mesh products.  We remain committed to representing them to a successful conclusion of their cases.

If you would like more information, check the video below, go to our website, or contact us at 1-800-481-1615 or email us.

Trademark Notice

Endo Health Solutions and American Medical Scientific are registered trademarks.  The use of these trademarks is solely for product identification and informational purposes.  These trademarks are not affiliated with this website, and the trademarks have no affiliation with the Brandi Law Firm.  Nothing on this site has been authorized or approved by the trademarks.

, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Leave a comment

A Brief Review of The Trial Testimony and Directed Verdict for Ethicon in Carolyn Lewis Mesh Bellwether Case

Judge Goodwin 2On February 18, 2014, Judge Joseph Goodwin granted Ethicon’s Motion for Directed Verdict at the close of Plaintiff’s case in Lewis vs. Ethicon, Inc. (In Re:  Ethicon, Inc., Pelvic Repair System Products Liability Litigation, MDL Docket No. 2327, Carolyn Lewis, et al. v. Johnson & Johnson, et al., No. 2:12-4301, S.D. W.Va.).

What is a Directed Verdict?

Federal Rule 50 provides: “If a party has been fully heard on an issue during a jury trial and the court finds that a reasonable jury would not have a legally sufficient evidentiary basis to find for the party on that issue, the court may:

(A) resolve the issue against the party;”

A directed verdict is granted where the Judge decides, at the conclusion of the Plaintiff’s case, that there is no evidence to support a verdict for the Plaintiff, and takes the case from the jury who never get to deliberate or make a decision.

Basis of Ethicon’s Motion for Directed Verdict

Ethicon brought its motion on two grounds; first that Plaintiff Carolyn Lewis waited too long to bring her suit and was thus barred by the Statute of limitations.  In November 2009, Lewis, of Texas, was implanted with a Gynecare TVT (tension free tape) pelvic mesh device made by Johnson & Johnson to stop urine leakage (Stress urinary Incontinence SUI).  The medical device was marketed in 1998 by Ethicon, a subsidiary of Johnson & Johnson, for permanent implantation in women to treat stress urinary incontinence (SUI).  She filed her lawsuit in July of 2012 in Texas and Ethicon contended it should have been filed under Texas law by January or February 2010.

The second ground for the motion by Ethicon is that Plaintiff failed to present sufficient evidence of defective design. This is especially important because previously Judge Goodwin threw out Ms. Lewis claim for failure to warn. (see below)

In its brief Ethicon wrote;

  1. On her claim for strict products liability for defective design, Plaintiff has failed establish through competent expert  testimony:

(a)    That the TVT was unreasonably dangerous as designed;

(b)    That a safer and equally efficacious alternative design was available and feasible in November 2009 that would have would have prevented or significantly reduced the risk of Plaintiff’s injury without substantially impairing the product’s utility; or

(c)    That her alleged injuries were caused by the purported defect in the product.

Since the Plaintiff is from Texas, the law of that jurisdiction is applicable.  Part (b) is a requirement of Texas law that is different from the requirements of many other States requiring the Plaintiff to show there was another safer product that would have prevented or reduced the risk of injury.  In its motion, Ethicon argued that Plaintiff failed to meet this requirement and failed to show that there was a feasible alternative that would have prevented or reduced the risk of injury.

According to Ethicon’s motion, none of the Plaintiff’s witnesses testified that a specific defect in Ms. Lewis mesh resulted in degradation or particle loss.  Ethicon’s motion states that the only Plaintiff witness who examined Ms. Lewis did not make any causal connection between her symptoms and alleged defect.  The Court granted the motion verbally and did not yet issue a written opinion.

Failure to Warn Excluded

A failure to warn case often depends largely on what warnings the doctor received from the company.  If the company did not adequately warn the inserting doctor then the patient could not have had adequate warnings and can go forward on the basis of inadequate warnings.  This would open the door to all of the information the company knew about adverse reactions, problems, etc., that it failed to place in its literature or warnings.  An important part of the claim is what the doctor was told, what the doctor read, and what information the doctor received from the company as to warnings.

MurielEarlier, Judge Goodwin removed the failure to warn case on the grounds that her implanting physician, Dr. Muriel Boreham of Dallas, had NOT read the instructions for product use (IFU) since 2002.  This was especially harmful to Ms. Lewis case because the Doctor would receive any warnings on her behalf, could evaluate the adequacy of the warnings and then instruct the patient.  Since the doctor had not read any warnings since 2002, the Court did not allow that portion of the case that would establish what Ethicon knew, when they knew it and how they failed to timely warn thus gutting the case and making it a very technical defective product case with debating scientists.

Trial witnesses who testified live or on videotape included the following;

Dr. Richard Isenberg, a urogynecologist from Philadelphia, who was the first Medical Director of Ethicon for the new division with Johnson & Johnson called Gynecare, which was established to develop and market medical devices for the female population,

Kloserhalfen

Kloserhalfen

Dr. Howard Jordi, a biochemist, whose lab did an analysis of the explants from Carolyn Lewis, testified that as long as the implant remained in situ, it will continue to degrade.

Dr. Bernd Kloserhalfen, surgical pathologist from Germany, has removed approximately 500 meshes from women experiencing complications from transvaginal mesh.

Klinge

Klinge

Dr. Uwe Klinge, who has studied mesh implants at Germany’s Aauchen University and testified in the Linda Gross trial

Dr. James Hart, a surgeon from New York who was hired by Johnson & Johnson and worked in medical affairs for Ethicon from 2005 to 2007

Piet Hinoul, former Ethicon Medical Director, who testified in the Linda Gross trial.

Hinoul

Hinoul

Dan Lamont, Director of Post Marketing Surveillance for Ethicon, quality engineer for Ethicon during the time the company began producing laser cut mesh.

Robinson

Robinson

David Robinson, M.D. is a worldwide medical director.  He also testified in the Linda Gross case. He is a OBGYN from Kansas who consulted for Ethicon and was an early proponent of the devices, doing approximately 100 insertions annually.

Dan Smith, Ethicon engineer for 36 years whose testimony included his involvement in the Matrix project looking for TVT mesh replacement.

Dr. Bruce Rosenzweig, urogynecologist at Rush University, who did about 20 insertions before stopping and has done approximately 200 removals, whose testimony included there were no studies ever done on TVT with the primary end point as safety; He did not examine Ms. Lewis.

Dr. Axel Arnaud, Medical director for Europe, whose deposition was read to the jury regarding changing out the TVT for an alternative.

Click here to read the full article: Judgment As Matter Of Law Granted In 1st Ethicon Pelvic Mesh Bellwether Trial

Vaginal Mesh Trial History

Bard has lost two jury trials, settled a third case after a jury selected, and settled a fourth before trial commenced.  In July 2012, a California jury awarded Christine Scott and her husband $5.5 million after she underwent nine revision surgeries.  Scott sued C.R. Bard in 2009 over its Avaulta Plus mesh product.

In February 2013, Linda Gross won $11.11 million in her lawsuit against Johnson & Johnson’s Ethicon brand over its Prolift vaginal mesh product.  Gross had 18 surgeries.  The New Jersey jury found that J&J failed to warn patients and doctors about the risks of its mesh products and made fraudulent misrepresentations.

On August 15, 2013, after about 12 hours of deliberation, the jury found for Donna Cisson in her vaginal mesh trial against manufacturer C.R.Bard Inc, and found damages in the amount of $250,000 and $1.75 million in punitive damages.  The jury found that Bard failed to provide adequate warnings as to the defects in its vaginal mesh product and that the device was defective.  Judge Joseph Goodwin upheld the 2 million verdict in October 2013 as appropriate and that Cisson’s attorneys proved the company’s vaginal mesh was the cause of her injuries.  In Queen vs. Bard, starting trial immediately after Cisson, a settlement was reached after the jury was selected.  Finally, Bard settled Melanie Virgil’s claims that Bard’s Avaulta Plus insert caused urinary problems before trial commenced in New Jersey.

Our office represents women who have suffered horribly from these mesh products.  We remain committed to representing them to a successful conclusion of their cases.

If you would like more information, check the video below, go to our website, or contact us at 1-800-481-1615 or email us.

, , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Leave a comment

Johnson & Johnson Mesh Trial Set to Begin

The first trial against Johnson & Johnson’s line of vaginal mesh products was set to commence February 10, 2014 in U.S. District in West Virginia.  Judge Joseph Goodwin will preside over the case, Carolyn Lewis, et al. v. Johnson & Johnson, et al., 2:12-cv-04301 TVT.  Lewis alleges complaints over Johnson & Johnson’s Ethicon-produced TVT Retropubic and Gynecare Prolift pelvic meshes.  More than 10,000 cases against Johnson & Johnson have been filed over this litigation.

Additional Bellwether Trials Scheduled

There are 9 bellwether trials that are scheduled in 2014 involving claims against Ethicon, Boston Scientific, Bard, and Johnson & Johnson.

The trial schedule for the different manufacturers is listed below:

Bard – there was a case set for February 10, 2014, but it was continued because the plaintiff key witness wife was critically ill.  That case will be re-scheduled.

Ethicon – there are six trials set and the first begins on Feb 10, 2014 and the second on 6/23/14.

Boston Scientific – there are four trials set with the first in March and the second in July, 2014.

American Medical Scientific – four trials set with the first set for 4/7/14 and the second set for 5/5/14.

Coloplast – not set yet.

Vaginal Mesh Trial History

Bard has lost two jury trials, settled a third case after a jury selected, and settled a fourth before trial commenced.  In July 2012, a California jury awarded Christine Scott and her husband $5.5 million after she underwent nine revision surgeries.  Scott sued C.R. Bard in 2009 over its Avaulta Plus mesh product.  In February 2013, Linda Gross won $11.11 million in her lawsuit against Johnson & Johnson’s Ethicon brand over its Prolift vaginal mesh product.  Gross had 18 surgeries.  The New Jersey jury found that J&J failed to warn patients and doctors about the risks of its mesh products and made fraudulent misrepresentations.  On August 15, 2013, after about 12 hours of deliberation, the jury found for Donna Cisson in her vaginal mesh trial against manufacturer C.R.Bard Inc, and found damages in the amount of $250,000 and $1.75 million in punitive damages.  The jury found that Bard failed to provide adequate warnings as to the defects in its vaginal mesh product and that the device was defective.  Judge Joseph Goodwin upheld the 2 million verdict in October 2013 as appropriate and that Cisson’s attorneys proved the company’s vaginal mesh was the cause of her injuries.  In Queen vs. Bard, starting trial immediately after Cisson, a settlement was reached after the jury was selected.  Finally, Bard settled Melanie Virgil’s claims that Bard’s Avaulta Plus insert caused urinary problems before trial commenced in New Jersey.

If you would like more information, check the video below, go to our website, or contact us at 1-800-481-1615 or email us.

Trademark Notice

Johnson & Johnson, C.R. Bard, Boston Scientific, Inc. American Medical Scientific, and Coloplast are registered trademarks.  The use of these trademarks are solely for product identification and informational purposes.  These trademarks are not affiliated with this website, and the trademarks have no affiliation with the Brandi Law Firm.  Nothing on this site has been authorized or approved by the trademarks.

, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Leave a comment

Judge Goodwin Sets Scheduling Order Leading to Multiple Trials in Boston Scientific Vaginal Mesh Cases

On December 19, 2013, Judge Joseph Goodwin issued a scheduling Order for the Boston Scientific vaginal mesh cases that will result in four hundred cases going through the pipeline to two separate trial dates on October 14, 2014 and February 15, 2015.

The Court ordered each side to pick 50 cases for each wave with Wave 1 having a deadline of January 21, 2014 for 100 cases to be selected and then discovery commencing on those 100 cases followed by trial on October 14, 2014. The 100 cases for Wave Two are to be selected on May 21, 2014 leading to a trial date of February 15, 2015. The orders may be accessed through the court’s website at www.wvsd.uscourts.gov.

If you would like more information, check the video below, go to our website, or contact us at 1-800-481-1615 or email us.

, , , , , ,

Leave a comment

Next Bard Transvaginal Mesh Trial Set for December 3, 2013

The next Bard vaginal mesh implant is set to commence December 3, 2013 in U.S. District in West Virginia.  Judge Joseph Goodwin will preside over the case, Carolyn Jones v. C. R. Bard, Inc. 2:11-cv-00114.  Jones alleges that Bard Avaulta Plus vaginal mesh implant gave her bladder spasms and caused bleeding as well as pelvic pain.

Bard Vaginal Mesh Trial History

Bard has lost two jury trials, settled a third case after a jury selected, and settled a fourth before trial commenced.  In July 2012, a California jury awarded Christine Scott and her husband $5.5 million after she underwent nine revision surgeries.  Scott sued C.R. Bard in 2009 over its Avaulta Plus mesh product.  On August 15, 2013, after about 12 hours of deliberation, the jury found for Donna Cisson in her vaginal mesh trial against manufacturer C.R.Bard Inc, and found damages in the amount of $250,000 and $1.75 million in punitive damages.  The jury found that Bard failed to provide adequate warnings as to the defects in its vaginal mesh product and that the device was defective.  Judge Joseph Goodwin upheld the 2 million verdict in October 2013 as appropriate and that Cisson’s attorneys proved the company’s vaginal mesh was the cause of her injuries.  In Queen vs. Bard, starting trial immediately after Cisson, a settlement was reached after the jury was selected.  Finally, Bard settled Melanie Virgil’s claims that Bard’s Avaulta Plus insert caused urinary problems before trial commenced in New Jersey.

If you would like more information, check the video below, go to our website, or contact us at 1-800-481-1615 or email us.

, , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Leave a comment

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 136 other followers