Final Verdict in New Jersey Amounts to a Win for the Plaintiff

After nearly two months of trial, the final verdict is in and it is a win for the plaintiff. The New Jersey jury considering the first Ethicon/J&J transvaginal mesh trial in the country awarded the injured plaintiff, Linda Gross, $3.35 million in compensatory damages and $7.76 million in punitive damages. Linda Gross was implanted with Ethicon/J&J's Prolift and suffered substantial and permanent injuries as a result of the product. Mrs. Gross was forced to endure approximately 18 corrective surgeries because of her injuries and she will require more treatment in the future.

The jury found that Ethicon/J&J knew of the significant risks associated with its Prolift product prior to Mrs. Gross's original implant but downplayed those risks and failed to warn implanting physicians, including Linda Gross's doctor, of what the mesh giant knew about the risks. The jury also found that Ethicon/J&J intended to deceive Linda Gross and committed fraud. In light of these findings, the jury was asked to consider whether Ethicon/J&J's conduct was egregious enough to warrant punitive damages (i.e. damages intended to punish the company and deter them from committing similar conduct in the future). The jury believed it did and hit the manufacturing giant with a multi-million dollar punitive damages verdict.

Although the total verdict ($11 million) amounts to only a fraction of the money that Ethicon/J&J spends every single day in advertising and marketing of its products ($57 million), it is hopeful that the message is made clear to to all medical device companies, including transvaginal mesh manufacturers: false and misleading business practices that cause injury to innocent victims will not be tolerated.

Punitive Damages Being Considered in Ethicon/J&J Transvaginal Mesh Trial

Yesterday, a New Jersey jury found that Ethicon/J&J committed fraud and failed to warn doctors of known risks associated with its transvaginal mesh product, Prolift. In light of its decision, the jury is now considering whether to award punitive damages. Punitive damages are different than compensation or reimbursement to an injured party for the harm specifically caused to her. They are damages specifically intended to punish the defendant for its wrongful conduct and they should be sufficient enough to deter and discourage the defendant, in this case Ethicon/J&J, from committing the similar bad acts in the future.

This morning, the jury heard evidence of Ethicon/J&J's net worth and will now decide whether the company's wrongful conduct rises to a level sufficient to award punitive damages. The jury was told that Ethicon/J&J has total assets in the amount of $121.3 billion and a net worth of $64 billion. They were also told that Ethicon/J&J spends approximately $52 million per day on advertising and marketing its products, which is roughly $3.3 million every 45 minutes of every day (the same amount awarded to the Plaintiff for her past and future injuries, lost wages, and medical bills caused by Ethicon/J&J).

Assuming punitive damages are warranted, how much do you think it would take to punish Ethicon/J&J and deter them from committing similar bad acts in the future?

Victory for the Plaintiff in First Ethicon/J&J Transvaginal Mesh Trial

Following several days of deliberations, the jury in the first Ethicon/J&J bellwether trial has returned a verdict in favor of the Plaintiff. The jury found that Ethicon/J&J failed to provide implanting surgeons adequate warnings about the risks associated with its Prolift product and made fraudulent representations about the product to the plaintiff. It awarded the Plaintiff 3.35 million in compensatory damages, which included damages for past and future wages, medical costs, spousal damages, and anguish. The jury will return tomorrow to begin the punitive damages phase.

First Ethicon Bellwether Trial Underway in New Jersey

Opening statements have concluded in the first Ethicon/J&J/Gynecare transvaginal mesh trial currently proceeding in New Jersey state court. The case is Gross v. Gynecare Inc. Atl-L-6966-10, Superior Court of Atlantic County, New Jersey (Atlantic City) and involves the Prolift Pelvic Floor Repair System, which has been withdrawn from the market by the manufacturer.

Plaintiff's counsel told the jury that a "poorly tested" medical device was implanted in his client in 2006 and that the product was "dangerous" and "unsafe," and that the warnings for the product were "completely inadequate." Defense counsel told the jury that the Plaintiff wanted and needed treatment for her underlying medical condition, that she and her doctor chose the Prolift product because it was the best and most effective treatment, and that all of the complications suffered by the Plaintiff were known and warned about in the product literature.

The first witness will take the stand tomorrow morning at 9:30 a.m. est.

Initial Conference in Transvaginal Mesh MDL

Transvaginal mesh attorneys from across the country are converging in Charleston, West Virginia this week for the first pretrial conference of the newly created multi-district litigation actions against transvaginal mesh manufacturing giants, Johnson & Johnson, Boston Scientific, and American Medical Systems. The joint conference will take place in front of Judge Joseph R. Goodwin in the Southern District of West Virginia - who was recently appointed by the Judicial Panel on Multi-District Litigation to oversee each of the individual dockets against these defendants and their related entities. Judge Goodwin has been overseeing the Bard transvaginal mesh MDL since 2010. Counsel organizational structure (including the appointment of Plaintiffs' Steering Committee), scheduling, and an overview of the litigation are expected to be on the conference agenda along with many other general housekeeping items. Attorney Erin Copeland from Houston, Texas will be one of the transvaginal mesh attorneys in attendance.

In July 2011, the FDA issued a News Release warning of the dangers associated with synthetic transvaginal mesh - including the types of mesh manufactured by Johnson & Johnson, Boston Scientific, American Medical Systems, Bard, and many others. The safety communication warned that transvaginal placement of mesh may expose women to more danger than other surgical options.  It also says that with the exposure to greater risk comes no evidence of greater clinical benefit such as improved quality of life.

The injuries associated with synthetic transvaginal mesh include, but are not limited to, mesh erosion, severe pain, infection, bleeding, pain with intercourse, and urinary problems. If you or a loved one have undergone a transvaginal mesh implant and are suffering from health problems associated with the implant, you should contact a transvaginal mesh attorney immediately to discuss your claim before the right to bring your claim is lost.