#transvaginal mesh litigation

[unwelcome-ozian]

What information do you have about Johnson & Johnson?

Alza filed an NDA for the transdermal opioid analgesic product in December 1987 for post-operative use and for the relief of chronic cancer pain. Developed by J&J subsidiary Janssen Pharmaceutica, fentanyl has been marketed since 1968 under the Sublimaze brand. The drug is currently approved for I.V. administration and used primarily as a short-acting analgesic during anaesthesia. "This new drug delivery system will make it possible for the first time to use fentanyl . . . outside the operating room to control moderate to severe pain." Source

US opioids: Johnson and Johnson and drug distributors offer $26bn to end thousands of lawsuits. Source

The drug company Johnson & Johnson (J&J) has expressed regret after court documents unsealed in talcum powder litigation showed that it funded a 1971 study in which Pennsylvania prison inmates, most of them black, were injected subcutaneously with asbestos. Source

Asbestos Prisoner Study May Spell More Problems for Johnson & Johnson

WASHINGTON - Global health care giant Johnson & Johnson (J&J) and its subsidiaries will pay more than $2.2 billion to resolve criminal and civil liability arising from allegations relating to the prescription drugs Risperdal, Invega and Natrecor, including promotion for uses not approved as safe and effective by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and payment of kickbacks to physicians and to the nation’s largest long-term care pharmacy provider.  The global resolution is one of the largest health care fraud settlements in U.S. history, including criminal fines and forfeiture totaling $485 million and civil settlements with the federal government and states totaling $1.72 billion. Source

Johnson & Johnson paused all clinical trials of its experimental COVID-19 vaccine after a study participant became sick with an "unexplained illness."

Johnson & Johnson has suspended international trials of a drug in the same class as an experimental drug made by Portuguese pharmaceutical company Bial, whose tests in France left one person brain dead and five others hospitalised. Source

1982 - McNeil

Product Recalled - Tylenol (acetaminophen) capsules

Reason for Recall - Medicine laced with potassium cyanide (poison) resulting in several patient deaths.

2009 to 2011 - McNeil

Product Recalled - Several OTC medicines including Tylenol, Motrin, Benadryl, St. Joseph aspirin, Sudafed, Pepcid, Mylanta, Rolaids, Zyrtec, Zyrtec Eye Drops (tens of millions of bottles)

Reason for Recall - Unpleasant smells causing nausea; tiny metal shards in liquid medicines; wrong ingredient levels

2010 - DePuy [Pinnacle Systems]

Product Recalled - ASR Hip Resurfacing System and ASR XL Acetabular System (metal-on-metal hip implants)

Reason for Recall - Metal poisoning (metallosis); loosening of the implant or joint dislocation; additional surgeries

2012 - Ethicon

Product Recalled - Gynecare Prolift Kit, Gynecare Prolift+M Kit, Gynecare TVT Secure and Gynecare Prosima Pelvic Floor Repair System Kit (transvaginal mesh implants)

Reason for Recall - Perforation of organs; vaginal bleeding and scarring; mesh erosion; severe pain

2014 - Ethicon

Product Recalled - Power Morcellators

Reason for Recall - Spread of uterine cancer; rapid progression of the disease; death

2019 – Johnson & Johnson

Product Recalled – 33,000 bottles of Johnson’s Baby Powder

Reason for Recall – The FDA found a small amount of asbestos — a known carcinogen — in a sample

Xarelto

Number of Lawsuits - 13,511

Injuries - severe, sometimes deadly bleeding events, blood clots, wound leaks, infection

J&J was involved in seven of 2017’s top ten health-care-related verdicts.

The company was also involved in the third-largest pharmaceutical settlement with the U.S. Department of Justice. In 2013, J&J paid the Justice Department more than $2.2 billion. The settlement resolved civil and criminal allegations involving Risperdal, Invega and Natrecor.

May 2017

J&J paid $33 million to most U.S. states and the District of Columbia. The states charged J&J with misrepresenting the manufacturing practices behind certain drugs. This included its Motrin products. These products were later recalled.

Oz

[connect2attorneyus]

Transvaginal  Mesh Lawsuit: Seeking justice for Harmful Complication

When choosing a lawyer who specializes in transvaginal mesh cases, it is crucial to consider their experience, track record, and available resources. Connect2Attorney specializes in connecting victims with highly qualified lawyers who have extensive expertise in handling transvaginal mesh litigation. These lawyers possess profound knowledge of the intricate legal complexities involved, ensuring they provide unparalleled counsel to their clients.

[lawyer4help]

HOW TO KNOW IF YOU ARE SUFFERING FROM VAGINAL MESH COMPLICATIONS

Lawyer4Help helps women file Bladder sling lawsuit in USA who have gone through vaginal mesh complications. We provide the best lawyers who have experience in legal proceedings on these cases and reaching a fair settlement.

Pelvic organ prolapse occurs when childbirth and such conditions wear out the tissue in the pelvic area which leads to pain and discomfort. Doctor recommends mesh surgery in the time of an emergency.

Tansvaginal mesh, also known as pelvic mesh or bladder sling. It is a surgical material made of non-absorbable/absorbable synthetic polypropylene that is used to give an extra support to pelvic organ. It is implanted during a surgical procedure for mending a weakened and damaged pelvic organ.

Although, the mesh surgery causes severe complications on account of the problems linked with the procedure. According to FDA, surgical mesh complications are frequent to encounter and ultimately reclassified the use of mesh from moderate to severe risk.

Complications you may face

Frequent complications reported so far from transvaginal surgery include:

● Vaginal mesh erosion

● Infection

● Pelvic and near organ perforation

● Vaginal Shrinkage

● Urinary problems

● Neuro-muscular problem

● Trouble walking

● Fever on and off

● Nausea

● Weight loss

Some of the news reported in the past where women faced urinary issues where every time they laugh, cough, sneeze or part in activities that create extra pressure, causing a small amount of urine to leak. In some cases, it was frequently identified that women wore sanitary pads in defense.

Based on Doctor Raz's experience, 20 to 30% of complications he named as “lupus type”, results in runny nose, muscle pain, fogginess and lethargy.

Primary reason behind facing difficulty is when the mesh starts eroding in the vagina. This makes the mesh slip off of the implanted position and lead to harming pelvic organs and its surroundings.

Symptoms of mesh complications

Vaginal mesh complication symptoms occur within week or month of the surgery which include:

● Painful intercourse

● Vaginal bleeding

● Intensifying urinary incontinence

● Vaginal discharge and pain

These symptoms worsen over time. It’s required to become aware of the symptoms and take prompt actions before it’s late. Besides medical treatment, it’s needed to spread awareness and get justice from it. Bladder Sling lawsuits helped many women and brought them to justice by huge settlements.

Recommendations for women who face complications

Consult a specialist in this area with significant surgical skills and start medical treatment at the earliest.

Other than this as you’ve learned how claiming an amount from companies is beneficial. It not just fulfills your financial loss but stimulates your mental state with a sense of fairness and aids to share knowledge vastly.

Let’s get into a few facts.

Women who have sued companies over vaginal mesh have pulled off success of at least around $300 million. By 2017, many companies had settled thousands of demands for millions of people.

There was a case of Sherise Grant among many women who had faced urinary problems, she pulled off a settlement of $8 billion.

One patient has achieved a victory of $41 million verdict against Johnson & Johnson. Other times the jury awarded millions of dollars to patients. In the meantime, 108,008 lawsuits have been filed in the MDLs and reaching settlements.

In August 2021, FDA banned Boston Scientific and Coloplast devices for transvaginal repair of pelvic organ prolapse to be available for commercial use.

Based on all the factuality, we recommend you to get in touch with the right attorneys on time. Lawyer4Help has experience in giving individuals the power to work out their legal rights in many matters and provides Best lawyers to you.

Settle your Transvaginal mesh lawsuit claims with us. We make things right for you!

[spoonie-living]

WARNING: Lawsuits Against Multiple Boston Scientific Implants

Hey, friends, here’s a little PSA for folks with or considering any Boston Scientific implants: this company is sketchy as hell.

Spinal Cord Stimulator Devices

Concerns surrounding their spinal cord stimulator device are beginning to brew, with patients experiencing pain due to poor battery design and battery migration. You can read patient experiences in this thread on Patient.info, as well as this description of one patient’s pain and the cause of it on Avvo.com. Heads up that these links contain graphic descriptions of the effects and causes.

Boston Scientific is also facing whistleblower lawsuits surrounding various acts of fraud, including concealing defects and denying replacement devices.

Transvaginal Mesh & Slings

You may remember hearing about their transvaginal mesh devices, which caused terrible pain in many of their recipients and led to a whopping 48,000 lawsuits. This isn’t just one version of the device, either; there were lawsuits across multiple iterations, even after the recalls of their 1999 device.

Just a bad device? Seems like no: a recent 60 Minutes segment uncovered evidence suggesting they may have even knowingly used counterfeit plastic.

Bottom line? Don’t trust this company. If you’re looking at getting an implant from them, you may want to reconsider, or at least do your research to know what you’re getting into. And if you already have an implant, definitely look into your legal options and connect with affected patients. Solidarity is power 💜

You can find a little more info about the litigation against the company here [link contains diagrams of internal organs].

And thanks to @intentnevermakesasound for getting this on the ol' radar.

[kellyhymanattorney]

Kelly Hyman – The Story of a Rising Democrat Strategist

You may know her as an actress, advocate, or an attorney, but Kelly Hyman is also a democrat strategist, as you may have already seen in her numerous TV news appearances Kelly Hyman is a Florida native, legal analyst and political commentator who is natural on screen and in court because of her background in acting. Prior to her current career, she appeared in many television commercials and shows!

Showbiz experience

Kelly Hyman was raised in New York City and Southern California. One of her prominent roles in her acting career was playing Loretta on ‘The Young and the Restless.’ Beyond TV roles, she also performed in New York City Off-Broadway. She is also an experienced voice actor and you may have heard her in ads, including the ‘Give me a Break’ commercial for Kit Kat.

Education and practice

Hyman studied in UCLA where she earned her Bachelor’s degree in Communications. In 2003, she got her J.D. with honors from the University of Florida College of Law. Kelly Hyman is a democratic strategist who also became the President of the Federal Bar, Palm Beach Chapter. She currently has her own law firm and is practicing in West Palm Beach, Florida, mainly representing clients in class-action suits.

Ms. Hyman’s extensive experience in mass tort litigation is backed by hundreds of claimants she represented in individual actions and claims filed in federal and state courts involving tobacco, water contamination, transvaginal mesh, and bladder slings. Kelly was also part of the multiple discovery committees where she delivered common benefit services for different mass tort projects.

Kelly Hyman, a democratic strategist continues to be invited by local news outlets to share her opinions on relevant matters. Her recent TV appearances include Court TV, Law & Crime, NewsMax and Fox News. She also appeared on The Whistleblower with Mychal Wilson, and Issues and Ideas with Chris DeBellow. Aside from practicing law, Ms. Hyman also lectures on seminars about mass tort litigation, improv for attorneys, and mindfulness.

Book

Kelly Hyman wrote ‘Top Ten Reasons to Dump Trump in 2020,’ which helped raise people’s awareness of controversial issues around Donald Trump. Through her book, she was able to provide clear reasons why Trump did not deserve another term while encouraging readers to vote.

[americanpoliticstoday]

Surgical Funding Facilitator and Physician Charged in Alleged Nationwide Scheme to Defraud Women in Connection with Transvaginal Mesh Litigation A surgical funding facilitator and a licensed urogynecologist were charged in a six-count indictment unsealed today for their roles in an alleged scheme to defraud women across the United States in connection with surgeries to remove transvaginal mesh (TVM) implants related to mass tort litigation.

[lawyer4help]

THE TRUTH BEHIND TRANSVAGINAL MESH LITIGATION

A vast number of women have taken legal action against the transvaginal mesh in recent years. The lawsuits have alleged various physical complications and autoimmune problems caused by the transvaginal mesh.

Here, the claims on transvaginal mesh filled in the U.S. are analyzed to identify their characteristics for clinical decision making.

What Is Transvaginal Mesh?

Transvaginal mesh is a net-like synthetic surgical tool used to treat pelvic organ prolapse among female patients. Organ pelvic prolapse is a condition that makes women leak from their bladder while doing activities like running, jumping or even sneezing and coughing.

It provides extra support to repair damaged or weakened internal tissues. It is implanted in the vagina vis surgical procedure. Transvaginal mesh can be also be known as sling, tape or hammock. It is usually impossible to remove the implant after it has been implanted.

Problems Described in the Transvaginal Litigation

Women who received the implant filed lawsuits claiming that they suffered from painful injuries. The complications include pain, bleeding, organ perforation, infection and autoimmune problems. According to the lawsuit, these ladies experienced issues walking, sitting, and engaging in other high-impact activities.

The problems described by the women who received the implant were so bad that they had to suffer multiple revision surgeries to remove the implant. Studies show that bacterial infections can grow on the implants.

The implant damages internal organs causing erosion in the vaginal wall. In addition, the implant cuts through tissues and damages nerves that cause pain during impact activities. In some claims, the mesh blocks the bladder, which causes urinary problems.

Studies show that in most cases, the complications were relatively minor. However, in some cases, the complications were severe. Studies also show that the implant can fail even after surgery, causing recurring prolapse. Some women even experience worsened unitary incontinence.

Allegations against Manufacturers

Five companies manufactured transvaginal mesh in the United States. American Medical System, Boston Scientific, C.R. Bard, Ethicon and Proxy Biomedical are transvaginal mesh manufacturers.

The lawsuit claims that the manufacturer had a legal duty to ensure the safety and effectiveness of its products. But the patients were misled with false information. According to a study in 2017, the products were cleared against the charge based on weak evidence.

● Lack of proper test of the implant

● Lack of research on the risk of the implant

● Failing to create a compelling and safe method to remove the implant

● Inadequate in waring the potential complications and injuries to the patients

● Misleading the patients, medical community and the public about the effectiveness of the product

The manufacturing companies have agreed to settle outstanding lawsuits and have set aside hundreds of millions of dollars for this. As of November 2019, Ethicon faced 1,202 lawsuits, followed by Boston Scientific with 965, American Medical with 80 and Bard with 16.

Current Controversy Surrounding Transvaginal Mesh

As of November 2019, more than 108,000 lawsuits have been filed against the mesh manufacturer.

More than 2,263 lawsuits are still pending. One of the largest settlements to date was $830 million for 20,000 claims.

In 2019, the U.S. Food & Drug Administration stopped all sales of transvaginal mesh for pelvic organ prolapse treatment. In the short-term clinical trial, studies found high efficiency and low complication rate in the transvaginal mesh implant for unitary incontinence. However, there is huge evidence of low efficiency and high complication rate for pelvic organ prolapse treatment.

The UK NHS study shows that one in 15 women who had the implant later removed them surgically. In a survey of 2,220 women who received the transvaginal mesh implant, 59% said that the treatment did not resolve the original issue. 58% of women said that they experienced pain during physical activity.

Settlement and Verdicts

So far, mesh manufacturers have paid billions for the lawsuit settlements. As of February 2019, 32 women had filed cases in the state court, out of which 24 women received a jury award of $345 million. The mesh manufacturer has paid $8 billion in settlement of the lawsuit.

As of March 2021, Boston Scientific agreed to settle deceptive marketing claims by paying $188.7 million.

Final words!

The transvaginal mesh litigation involves a sling for the procedure. However, the rise in the lawsuit does not reflect low complication rates in the report. The complication seems to be expected in women who had received the implant to treat pelvic organ prolapse.

New treatments are trialled on patients when other treatments have proven ineffective. However, patients should always be informed about the treatment and its efficiency to give informed consent for the procedure.

The patient should be comfortable asking their specialist about the procedure and complication rates. They should feel comfortable with the evidence that the surgery will work.

[meshlawsuitus-blog]

Transvaginal mesh litigation has till date been one of the largest mass torts in history.

[bramzonlaw-blog]

Mass Tort's team, with their experienced professionals, would work tirelessly on behalf of the clients to achieve maximum compensation for their losses and injuries. Connect with Bramzon Law Firm PLLC team at (855) 434-2332 or visit their website at http://bramzonlawfirm.com/

[forlawfirmsonlymarketing]

Sandy Hook Families Lawsuit Against Remington Allowed to Proceed

In a landmark decision the Connecticut Supreme Court this week reinstated a lawsuit filed by Sandy Hook school-shooting victims against Remington, one of the nation’s largest gun manufacturers. Families of nine victims and one survivor of the Newton, Connecticut school shooting sued Remington Outdoor Co. Inc. and other defendants, including a gun wholesaler and a local retailer, alleging wrongful marketing and unethical advertising under the Connecticut Unfair Trade Practices Act (CUTPA). In the narrow 4-3 ruling, justices dismissed a case against the defendants based on negligent entrustment. Some are hailing the decision as a landmark victory against gun violence. Since passage of the The Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act (PLCAA)  (15 U.S.C. §§ 7901 through 7903,) gunmakers have enjoyed near complete immunity for liability over gun violence. With certain specific exceptions, the PLCAA immunizes firearms manufacturers, distributors, and dealers from civil liability for crimes committed by third parties using their weapons. Our Massachusetts product liability attorneys note this claim illustrates the many ways in which a product liability lawsuit can hold manufacturers accountable. However, this particular lawsuit has a narrow, treacherous pathway to success as Remington will almost certainly appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court, which must decide whether to allow state consumer law to trump federal protections in place to protect gunmakers.

State Consumer Protections vs. Federal Immunity from Liability

The New York Times reports Connecticut Supreme Court justices heard the case in November 2017, where they peppered Remington representatives with questions about advertisements that touted the AR-15 semiautomatic rifle as being able to “single-handedly” overcome “forces of opposition.” Examples of advertising for the high-capacity firearm included slogans like “Consider your man card reissued.” Plaintiff attorneys contended it was dangerous marketing of an assault rifle sure to appeal to troubled young men. On December 14, 2012, Adam Lanza, 20, killed his mother in their Newton home, before shooting his way into the elementary school, where he went on a killing spree with a Bushmaster AR-15 before taking his own life. “Congress did not intend to immunize firearms suppliers who engage in truly unethical and irresponsible marketing practices,” the court’s majority opinion noted. Connecticut law “does not permit advertisements that promote or encourage violent, criminal behavior.” Congress has passed laws aimed at shielding a number of American industries from liability over injury or death caused by their products, including the airplane manufacturing and rental car industries. The General Aviation Revitalization Act of 1994 limited liability for manufacturers of general aviation aircraft. Production of private aircraft by companies like Cessna and Mooney had declined from 18,000 in 1978 to fewer than 1,000 in the late 1980s. A number of companies struggled to remain financially solvent and blamed the cost of product liability litigation for drastically curbing construction. It’s the reason that to this day private aviation enthusiasts know there are very few small planes on the secondary market that were manufactured in the late 1980s or early 1990s. The vast majority of today’s used airplanes were manufactured in the heydays of the 1970s. Curbing manufacturer liability did not stem the tide, as Mooney and countless others have ceased production or gone out of business. More recently, the Graves Amendment (49 U.S.C. § 30106) passed in 2005 and aims to shield rental car companies from the vicarious liability associated with traffic collisions involving rental vehicles. Vicarious liability alleges the owner of a vehicle acted inappropriately (via negligent entrustment or some other means) in allowing their vehicle to be used by an at-fault party. You will note similar argument was just rejected by the Connecticut Supreme Court in the case against gun manufacturers. There have been many challenges to these immunity laws. However, in few cases have state laws been permitted to trump such federal immunities.

Seeking Damages from Gunmakers

The Connecticut  justices ruled the lower court was correct in dismissing the lawsuit based on PLCAA, but the judge was incorrect not to let the case proceed on the CUTPA allegations. The case was originally filed in 2014 in state court, before being moved to federal court. A federal judge then returned it to state court. State Superior Court Judge Barbara Bellis had initially allowed the case to proceed to trial before ultimately dismissing it based on the broad immunity offered gunmakers under federal law. Industry watchers expect Remington to appeal the case to the U.S. Supreme Court. The Connecticut Supreme Court ruled Connecticut consumer law could be applied under the PLCAA and it will now be up to the nation’s highest court to decide whether to allow such a loophole in federal protections granted to gunmakers. U.S. Sen. Richard Blumenthal called the decision “a ‘wow’ moment in American legal history, and compared it to the initial lawsuits filed decades ago against big tobacco, which ultimately resulted in a $246 billion settlement. “It breaks open the seemingly impenetrable shield — unjust and unfair — enjoyed uniquely by the arms manufacturers,” Blumenthal told the Hartford Courant.  The case has been vigorously contested by Remington and gun-rights organizations, including the National Rifle Association. As our Massachusetts product liability lawyers have written previously, being forced into litigation typically forces these companies and organizations to release a treasure trove of documents that are often more damning than reaching a large settlement. Remington had argued the alleged violation of Connecticut Trade Practices Act were legally insufficient and that the state’s consumer law did not recognize damages for personal injury or wrongful death.  In 2014, it built a new plant in Huntsville, Alabama, to manufacturer the AR-15 style sei-automtic rifle. The case had been delayed after Remington filed for bankruptcy protection last year. It emerged from bankruptcy in May 2018 after just three months as part of a reproved restructuring involving nearly $1 billion in debts. Established in 1816, it is America’s oldest gunmaker. The case is DONNA L. SOTO, ADMINISTRATRIX (ESTATE OF VICTORIA L. SOTO), ET AL. v. BUSHMASTER FIREARMS INTERNATIONAL, LLC, ET AL. If you are the victim of Massachusetts product liability, call the Law Offices of Jeffrey S. Glassman for a free and confidential appointment — 1-888-367-2900. FDA Recalls, Market Withdraws, and Safety Alerts More Blog Entries Transvaginal Mesh Update: Boston Scientific Settles with 350 Plaintiffs, Feb. 11, 2018, Boston Product Liability Attorney Blog

https://www.forlawfirmsonly.com/sandy-hook-families-lawsuit-against-remington-allowed-to-proceed/

[mastcomm]

Johnson & Johnson Is Told to Pay $344 Million in Pelvic Mesh Suit

Johnson & Johnson should pay $344 million in damages because the company deceptively marketed transvaginal pelvic mesh implants to tens of thousands of women in California, a judge ruled Thursday.

Johnson & Johnson said it intended to appeal the ruling, which it said “disregards” the company’s compliance with federal regulations.

The judgment was framed as a civil penalty against the company related to sales practices for its pelvic mesh products, which have been the subject of years of personal injury litigation from women who used them to treat a condition called organ prolapse. The total payouts by a handful of the mesh manufacturers to injured women now tally about $8 billion.

The ruling, by Judge Eddie Sturgeon of San Diego Superior Court, was less than the $800 million in damages the state had asked for last year at trial. California’s attorney general first filed this deceptive marketing lawsuit in 2016.

The award was more than twice the size of the $117 million settlement J&J reached to resolve claims by 41 states and the District of Columbia for similar deceptive marketing accusations arising from the sale of pelvic mesh products by the company’s Ethicon division.

“Johnson & Johnson knew the danger of its mesh products but put profits ahead of the health of millions of women,” said the attorney general, Xavier Becerra.

In a statement, Mr. Becerra said the ruling was the first time a court had issued findings of fact that Johnson & Johnson “did indeed engage in illegal false and deceptive business practices.”

After years of complaints, the Food and Drug Administration last year stopped the sale of pelvic mesh to treat organ prolapse. Johnson & Johnson had stopped selling pelvic mesh to treat that condition in 2012, but it and other manufacturers still sell similar products to treat urinary incontinence.

The most common complaint from women with mesh implants is that they can cause bleeding, searing pain and painful sexual intercourse. Many women have undergone surgeries to remove the implants, but some of those surgeries have had other complications.

Some doctors, consultants and lawyers have even tried to profit from concern about mesh implants. Last year, federal prosecutors in Brooklyn indicted a doctor and a marketing consultant in a kickback scheme that involved luring women with mesh implants to get removal surgery, even if the implants weren’t causing many problems for them.

In a 128-page decision, Judge Sturgeon said Johnson & Johnson had abused its trust by “depriving physicians of the ability to properly counsel” patients about the risks of having a synthetic device implanted in their bodies. “This abuse of trust is particularly egregious when it comes to selling a permanent implant with no exit strategy while hiding its risks,” he said.

The manufacturers of mesh implants have argued that millions of women with the medical devices have not suffered complications and the implants have proved beneficial to them.

Johnson & Johnson, in its statement, said the company “empathizes with women who suffer from pelvic organ prolapse and stress urinary incontinence.” But the pharmaceutical company added that “millions of patients have benefited from Ethicon’s devices.”

The company said it “responsibly communicated” the risks of mesh implants to doctors and patients.

from WordPress https://mastcomm.com/johnson-johnson-is-told-to-pay-344-million-in-pelvic-mesh-suit/

[michaelgabrill]

The settlement centers on marketing practices for a kind of medical device that has prompted years of personal injury litigation and billions in payouts.

[loyallogic]

$57 Million Plaintiff Award in Philadelphia Transvaginal Mesh Trial

On September 7th, a Philadelphia jury awarded plaintiff Elle Ebaugh a $57 million award in her case against Johnson & Johnson subsidiary Ethicon Inc., manufacturers of a of an allegedly defective pelvic mesh product that left Ebaugh with permanent damage to her urinary tract.

The landmark verdict is the largest plaintiff award so far handed down by the Philadelphia Court of Common Pleas, which currently has more than 130 similar cases involving transvaginal mesh products waiting to move forward.

The medical device manufacturer was ordered to pay Ebaugh $7.1 million in compensatory damages for her injuries,  while the remaining $50 million of the total award represented putative damages.

During the trial, lawyers for the plaintiff introduced evidence that suggested Johnson & Johnson manipulated medical literature to minimize the occurrence of negative complications from mesh implants, and that the company failed to adequately warn doctors of the potential for injury posed by TVM.

According to the lawsuit, the plaintiff had received two implants of transvaginal mesh products designed and manufactured by Ethicon. Over time, the implants eroded into the plaintiff’s urethra, forcing her to undergo a number of corrective surgeries, in spite of which she continues to suffer from ongoing urinary incontinence.

These injuries are consistent with those suffered by other plaintiffs in transvaginal mesh products liability litigation. Other injuries allegedly caused by artificial mesh products include infections, chronic pain, erosion of the implant through the vaginal wall, as well as a recurrence of pelvic organ prolapse.

Johnson & Johnson has not fared well during the first 6 TVM trials held in Philadelphia – so far, courts have found for the defense on only one occasion. The remaining plaintiff verdicts of $20 million, $17.5 million, $13.6 million, and $12.5 million may indicate that the company may be facing an uphill battle in the city of brotherly love.

Beyond Philadelphia courts, the national landscape of TVM litigation against the world’s largest pharmaceutical company consists of more than 55,000 cases.

In 2016, the FDA issued two orders that reclassified transvaginal mesh devices from class II, or devices that pose a moderate risk of injury to patients, to class III devices, which pose a risk of more serious injury. The FDA cited a “a significant increase in the number of reported adverse events associated with the use of surgical mesh for transvaginal POP repair” as a major reason for the shift in their regulatory stance.

The post $57 Million Plaintiff Award in Philadelphia Transvaginal Mesh Trial appeared first on The Expert Institute.

$57 Million Plaintiff Award in Philadelphia Transvaginal Mesh Trial published first on http://ift.tt/2gOI9L4

[cochranlaw]

Who Can I Sue for Hernia Mesh Complications in Michigan?

If you have had a hernia mesh repair procedure performed and suffered serious side-effects or had to have the procedure redone, contact a good hernia mesh lawyer in Michigan, to evaluate your case and assist you with a possible claim.

What is hernia mesh?

Hernia mesh is a surgical product or medical device commonly used in hernia repair surgeries. In the USA, nearly a million of these surgeries are performed annually, and hernia mesh is used in about 90% of hernia repair surgeries.

A hernia develops when abdominal tissues separate, and organs or parts of an organ slip through the opening. It may cause lumps, pain, and sometimes obstruction. 

Most common types of hernias include:

Umbilical,     in the belly button 

Inguinal,     in the groin area 

Epigastric     or ventral, in the wall of the abdomen

Hiatal,     when the stomach pushes into the chest area

Femoral,     top of the leg near your groin 

Incisional, when a surgical wound     fails to heal

The hernia mesh device made of synthetic materials such as polypropylene which may degrade after implantation. It is used to stabilize the tissue surrounding the opening and to close off the opening. 

Some mesh products have degraded, broken, punctured bowel and caused bowel obstruction and infections, fistulas, and repeat surgeries. Atrium Medical coated their devices with Omega 3 from fish oil to stop it from adhering to other tissues; however, did not prevent it from sticking. It has caused major infections and allergic reactions. 

Hernia mesh materials are like that used for surgical repair products such as transvaginal mesh and bladder sling devices, which have also resulted in thousands of personal injuries and medical devices lawsuits.

Common Injuries of Hernia Mesh Implants

Adhesions

Erosion     of the implant device

Mesh     failure

Abdominal     pain

Groin     and testicular pain

Migration

Infections

Recurrence of the hernia 

Most Serious Injuries in Hernia Mesh Cases

Perforation     of organs or tissues and organ damage

Bowel     obstruction

Fistulas

Seromas

Chronic     pain

Life-threatening     infections

Multiple     surgeries

Autoimmune     problems

Delayed     or long-term consequences

Wrongful death

Hernia Mesh Firms

Several hernia mesh manufacturers are involved in these cases, most notably

•           Ethicon (a Johnson & Johnson Company); 

•           Atrium Medical; 

•           Bard (Bard Davol)

•           Gore

•           Covidien / Medtronic

 Who Can I Sue?

Medical malpractice cases are lengthy, expensive to litigate and complicated, and you should contact a good personal injury lawyer or a hernia mesh lawyer. 

You can sue any of your medical providers, the institution or hospital where you had your surgery and aftercare done, or the hernia mesh manufacturer. You must meet all the requirements for a medical malpractice case for each defendant. 

As in all medical malpractice cases, you need to satisfy all four of the following components:

Duty     of Care – exact responsible parties

Breach     of duty - negligence

Causal     connection – must have directly caused the harm; and

Actual loss or harm – quantified.

Several of the thousands of claims filed against manufacturers have been pooled into MDLs (multidistrict litigations) for the purpose of increased efficiencies and speeding up pre-trial activities as well as rapid execution should a settlement be reached. In Canada, a few class-actions have been formed. For some manufacturers, there are not enough complaints to pool. Your personal injury lawyer in Michigan can give you details about these cases. Look for an attorney with a medical background because they have more insight and experience in medical issues. 

Breach of Duty of Care for a Hernia Mesh Manufacturer would include:

1.         Defective product 

Faulty     design

Faulty     manufacturing

Product     not sterile

Marketing defects

2.         Failure to provide adequate warning of foreseeable side-effects and complications.

[generoussheepblaze]

U.S. state attorneys general said on Thursday that Johnson & Johnson and its unit had agreed to pay nearly $117 million to settle litigation over deceptive marketing of the company's transvaginal surgical mesh devices.

from Reuters: Health News https://reut.rs/2Mqp3vD http://bit.ly/2zwRqiM