Blockus Mesh Trial Ahead in Philadelphia

Jane Akre
October 17, 2017

November 6 2017 Patricia Blockus Et al vs Ethicon Women’s Health and Urology.

Blockus is from Hunlock Creek, Pennsylvania where she lives with her husband Eugene. The defendant corporation are Ethicon, and C.R. Bard Inc. as well as Sofradim Production SAS, Tissue Science Laboratories Limited, Secant Medical and Prodesco, Inc. The trial was moved from June 19. 1307-00707 Judge Arnold New, Court of Common Pleas Philadelphia County.

She was implanted with a Prolift pelvic organ prolapse (POP) mesh anda PelviSoft Acellular Collagen BioMesh made by Bard. See Bard here. Bard claims its PelviSoft is highly effective for posterior vaginal wall defects and is “ideal for use in repairing rectocele and cystocele prolapse.” It was developed after Pelvicol another biomesh and is made by C.R. Bard in Covington Georgia. The promotional material does not say where the “natural” mesh is derived but further research finds it is made frm porcine (pig) dermis or skin.

Porcine dermis study, randomized control trial, with 12 month followup. Using a cure definition is anatomic with no pelvic organ prolapse at Stage 2 or greater. 57 patients. Published in Obstetrics and Gynecology January 2013 by Patrick Culligan MD, Division of Urogynecology Atlantic Health System, Morristown, NJ.

She was implanted with Prolift March 19, 2007 and the PelfiSoft July 28, 2008 both at Gesinger medical Center in Danville, PA to treat pelvic organ prolapse. The implant surgeon is Barbara Plucknett, MD. She underwent one explantation July 28, 2008 by Dr. Mitesh Parekh, MD.

The complaint states negligence, manufacturing defect, failure to warn, defective product, design defect and common law fraud, the first among 16 claims. The Block family asks for unitive damages.

Documents here

This trial culminates what each side has learned about the other. As a result, the Blockus case is document-heavy. Many of the principals you’ve seen before.

On May 5, 2017, Johnson & Johnson and Ethicon filed motions to preclude the testimony of expert Peggy Pence, Ph.D., Uwe Klings, M.D., Ph.D and Daniel Elliott, M.D.. This was done under Pennsylvania Rule of Evidence 702, known as the Frye Motion for the case it cites Frye v. United States, 293 Ethicon had filed almost idential Frey motions to preclude testimony in the Hammons case against Ethicon.

With Peggy Pence, for example, Pence is a regulatory expert with more than 40 years experience in bringing medical devices to market. Dr. Pence has testified that the Proliftwas misbranded when brought to market because the manufacturer made false and misleading statements.

Prolift actually was marketed by Ethicon prior to having any FDA clearance at all. It was only when Prolift M+ was submitted for FDA clearance did the FDA even know the existence of Prolift. Then andonly then did the FDA issue it clearance to market, three years after it was already being sold!

This information was introduced in the Linda Gross Prolift trial in 2013.

Dr. Uwe Klinge is a biomaterials scientist who collects explanted hernia mesh for a decade and examines their properties. Ethicon does not want him to testify about Ethicon’s purported knowledge and state of mind, about degradation of mesh and particle loss.

Ethicon wants to exclude the testimony of Dr. Daniel Elliott that Prolift is defective and had a duty as a medical device manufacturer to make a safe and effective product.

Blockus will feature the Klinge expert report, Peggy Pence Expert Report, Daniel Elliott expert report. Klosterhalfen foreign body carcinogenesis of surgical meshes. Defense has filed motions to exclude Peggy Pence as it was entered before in Hammons, Carlina and Beltz. Also motions to exclude Klinge as filed in Hammons, Carlino, Engleman and Beltz. Motions to exclude Bruce Rozenszweig as an expert witness. There is a Motion in limine to eliminate the Chevron MSDS and any discussion of Johnson & Johnson shreading of documents pertaining to its transvaginal mesh production. See MND story here. There is a motion to eliminate discussions heard in the Budke death trial and the Linda Gross Prolift trial in New Jersey.

Motion for Summary judgment filed by Ethicon October 6, citing she filed outside of her statute of limitation. Ms Blockus should have been aware of her mesh injury July 2008 and October 2010 and/or should ha ve been aware of the 2008 and 2011 FDA Public Health Notices.

Ms. Blockus said shewas not aware her injuries might be linked to mesh until she saw television commercials after which she filed her lawsuit. “Defendant says “a plaintiff cannot just sit back and wait to see a lawyer television advertisement before filing suit when there is similar, if not more detailed, information from a government source regarding a potential causal connection between a product and certain symptoms that has been accessible and available to the publc for 5 years.”

Between March 2007 and November 2011 she says she experienced ongoing pain and urinary symptoms, four mesh erosions and underwent four surgical procedures to correct the erosions. She also had an additional prolapse device implanted.

Also listed for trial is Hespe v Boston Scientific Trial date certain January 22, 2018

There are 131 records found waiting for trial in this pelvic mesh mass tort in Philadelphia.

Diaz trial date certain April 30 2018 Diaz v Ethicon, Trial date certain for Rubio v Ethicon, Trial date certain Deimler, Hespe Mccormick, Komarnicki v Ethicon.

Hespe v Boston Scientific has a trial date of J anuary 22, 2018.

Jump to Comments

Downloads for this Article:

Also in this Section:

More articles coming soon...

Categories for this Page

More categories coming soon...
No items found.

Related to this Article:

More articles coming soon...