Inside the Beltz Pelvic Mesh Trial

//Inside the Beltz Pelvic Mesh Trial

Inside the Beltz Pelvic Mesh Trial

Stewart Albertson

Mesh Medical Device News Desk, May 27, 2017 ~ The $2.16 million verdict for Sharon Beltz brought to an end the fourth consecutive trial for mesh-injured Plaintiffs in this court. 

The jury verdict came down Friday May 26th after a 12-day trial in the Philadelphia Court of Common Pleas.

Beltz was awarded a compensatory amount with no punitive damages that had been present in the last three trials, and which totaled $34.5 million.


A Failure to Warn?

Dr. Vince Lucente

Ethicon argued the Instructions for Use (IFU) that accompanied the Prolift were adequate in informing the implanting physician, Dr. Heather van Raalte.

The instructions urge surgeons to seek additional training since “The IFU does not convey the impression that it presents all available information concerning the Prolift.”

The condition of (dyspareunia , painful sex) is not in the IFU but its implied, said Ethicon.

In this case, Dr. Vincent Lucente, preceptor and consultant to Ethicon, trained the Beltz implanting physician, Dr. van Raalte. (Dr. Lucente also trained Dr. Becky Simpson, the surgeon who implanted Joan Budke, who ultimately died from an infection originating with her mesh implant it was revealed during her trial in November 2014.)

Dr. Heather van Raalte, Princeton Urogynecology

A second consent form signed by the Plaintiff in 2006 shows she understood the dangers ahead, argued Ethicon.  It said:

The benefits and purpose of the operation and/or procedure have been explained to me in language I understand by Dr. Heather van Raalte as well as the risks, alternatives and complications pertaining to the above procedure/surgery which include but is not limited to: infections, deep vein thrombosis, blood clots to the lungs, wound healing problems, complications from extensive blood loss, including shock and possible death. Other risks include but are not limited to: bleeding, injury to surrounding structures (bowel, bladder, ureters), failure, recurrence, voiding dysfunction, nerve injury, mesh erosion, possible coversion [sic] to laparotomy.

It included chronic inflammation.

Ms Beltz testified her doctor warned her only about general risks of surgery and not risks particular to mesh or the Prolift device.  Dr. van Raalte testified there were no long-term studies available on the Prolift to inform her patient, according to court records.

Mrs. Beltz also said she received no information on how the Prolift would be inserted with cannulas and trocars and puncture wounds to the vagina.

Dr. van Raalte was a consultant to Ethicon and received more than $100,000 for her services.

TVT-O from

A motion by the Plaintiffs for Ethicon to produce its corporate designees including consultants Dr. Lucente, Dr. Kavaler, and Miles Murphy was quashed after Ethicon argued that it was a Plaintiff  effort to harass.

On April 25, 2017 Ms. Beltz dropped her claims related to the TVT-O and would not make any claim that her current urinary and or incontinence issues were related to the Prolift.

Mr. Beltz also decided to voluntarily dismiss his claim for loss of consortium.

What remained were design defect of the Prolift a failure to adequately warn of the risks of Prolift, and negligent and/or fraudulent misrepresentations as to the attributes of Prolift, in addition to punitive damages.

The Plaintiff had already withdrawn the designated testimony of expert urogynecologist, Dr. Rosenzweig which related to defects in the TVT-O.  Also withdrawn was the expert testimony of Dr. Uwe Klinge, a biomaterial researchers related to the TVT-O.

Sharon Beltz underlying and ongoing urinary issues were no longer an issue in this case.

That did not stop the Defense on May 9, 2017, when its counsel announced it planned to introduce evidence of safety and efficacy of the TVT-O as defense of the Prolift.

Any evidence submitted about the safety of the TVT-O is no longer relevant to this case argued the Plaintiffs, and a waste of time for the jurors and the Court.

Dr. Peggy Pence, Linda Gross trial Feb. 2013



Peggy Pence, PhD, in her expert report concluded that Ethicon marketed a misbranded and adulterated Prolift device because it did not have an adequate pre-market clearance through the 510(k) when it was launched in March 2005.

In 2004, in preparation for launching the Prolift mesh kits, Ethicon initiated two non-randomized non-controlled studies to evaluate a pre-cut surgical mesh made of the same non-absorbable polypropylene Gynemesh PS. Studies were also conducted at eight sites in France and three sites in the U.S. In the U.S. the failure rate was 12% and 20% had dyspareunia in the French study.

There were adverse events in 25.6% of the patients in the French study, and 65.9% of patients in the U.S. experienced adverse events, reports Pence.

In February 2005, Sean O’Bryan, Senior Project Manager, Regulatory Affairs at Ethicon issued a notification that Gynecare Prolift Pelvic Floor Repair System was considered a line extension of the Gynecare Gynemesh PS which had received a 510(k) clearance in January 2002.

So with no 510(k) clearance, Ethicon launched Prolift for marketing in March 2005.

The FDA had no notice of the existence of Prolift even though this mesh would be a novel device – pre-cut and boxed for an anterior implant, a posterior implant and a total implant complete with Gynecare Gynemesh PS, and with guide needles, fasteners and a fastener delivery device system.

According to regulatory expert Dr. Pence, the misbranding went to labeling issues and failures to follow-up on adverse event reports or interpret the data on serious injuries. Ethicon withheld known adverse complications from physicians because of a failure to seek a 510(k) clearance, and withheld information from the FDA during the 510(k) review that would have led to it not being approved.

They were exempt from premarket clearance, said Ethicon, because they were custom devices.

Dr. Pence said they were neither a custom device and were not exempt from compliance with the 510(k) premarket notification requirements.  Nor were the instruments.

“Ethicon marketed a product that violated safety and ethical standards,” she concluded.

Ethicon motioned to omit the expert reports of Drs. Klinge, Rosenzweig, Margolis and Pence because they will offer “improper and inadmissible testimony concerning the purported knowledge, intent and motives of Ethicon of the Food and Drug Administration.”



Beltz Peggy Pence Expert Report on Prolift

Beltz Motion Quashed for Def to Produce five corporate designees

Beltz Motion to take TVT O out of the case 

By | 2017-06-01T20:50:04+00:00 May 27th, 2017|Legal News|22 Comments

About the Author:

I’m National News Editor, Jane Akre and I began Mesh Medical Device News Desk aka Mesh News Desk (MND) in the summer of 2011 just after the Food and Drug Administration issued an explicit warning to the public that complications associated with surgical mesh used for prolapse repair (POP) and incontinence (SUI) are NOT rare! That was the starting point for the litigation you see today and thousands of lawsuits have been filed by women whose lives have been altered, some permanently, by the use of this petroleum-based product.


  1. Dy May 27, 2017 at 5:07 pm - Reply

    Jane, do you think that I could find good representation.? I was offered a settlement but I do not want to accept it.

    • Misrepresented May 28, 2017 at 3:00 am - Reply

      I’m pretty disgusted too! I don’t know what to do. I’m glad my life is worth so little to them

  2. Kitty May 27, 2017 at 6:09 pm - Reply

    What happened to women prior to 510k…the ones from. 2002?

    • Jane Akre May 27, 2017 at 9:00 pm - Reply

      Medical devices have never been regulated for safety and efficacy by our FDA. Industry has always been in the driver’s seat it appears.

  3. Emmie May 29, 2017 at 5:58 am - Reply

    “On April 25, 2017 Ms. Beltz dropped her claims related to the TVT-O and would not make any claim that her current urinary and or incontinence issues were related to the Prolift.
    Mr. Beltz also decided to voluntarily dismiss his claim for loss of consortium.”

    Why would Sharon Beltz drop the avoid? Because she no longer had this issue? Seems strange?
    Would be interested to find out her doctor who
    helped her.

    Why was Lucente’s “happy dance” about getting “experimental” off the Prolift box not mentioned? Her doctor also worked under Lucente’s business for some time.

    • Jane Akre May 29, 2017 at 9:27 am - Reply

      Maybe it wasn’t mentioned at the trial…the happy dance. Would you like to sit in the next trial in Philadelphia so we can get details.? Anyone near Philly?

      • Emmie May 29, 2017 at 4:30 pm - Reply

        When does the next trial start?

        • Jane Akre May 29, 2017 at 4:47 pm - Reply

          working on that story now

    • Anon May 29, 2017 at 5:02 pm - Reply

      I know………I found those events a bit bazar. Were there some agreement and settling behind the scene? Strange! ???? ???? ????

  4. Inpain2010 May 30, 2017 at 5:16 am - Reply

    Yea my lawyer is going to give me a 3000. Check after 5 surgeries. And pain management for 7 years . I DON’T GET IT

  5. ShirlAnn May 31, 2017 at 5:29 am - Reply

    Ethicon warnings is all new to me. Never was we warned all stated above You think I would have risked my life my healthcare. If I had been warned I would not of had agreed to any of these. My OBGYN had never had proper training to the removal of it. Let alone proper care of Implanting the toxic materials. This is so sad handed a piece of paper to sign in a moments notice is not enough of explanation and hurry and sign all paper work before being put under for surgery is not enough explaination. This is quite scarry to say the least. Now I understand more after many years why I am always in pain with little or no relief. They are still in court under this case Jane assigned by another Judge so can you tel us why this is hapening?

    • Jane Akre May 31, 2017 at 12:51 pm - Reply

      That is not informed consent! I cannot possibly know what is happening in your case but your law firm should! What do they say when you call them? Have you looked up your case in the MDL, I’m assuming it’s in there. Become the squeaky wheel!!

  6. Jimmy May 31, 2017 at 10:28 am - Reply

    How does she get that much not claiming it as her problem and my poor mother gets offered 90,000 and told by her lawyer that they wont offer anymore! My mom is on disability because of the mesh has had numerous surgeries and they kick her in the teeth with that!

    • Jane Akre May 31, 2017 at 12:48 pm - Reply

      Its based on many things, and no it’s not fair! How many revision surgeries? Did she smoke and is she overweight? How about previous conditions? Did she work? How old is she? Again none of this is fair.

    • Kitty May 31, 2017 at 4:26 pm - Reply

      90k? Did u just read that a lady got 3k?

      • Jimmy June 1, 2017 at 10:20 am - Reply

        Yes… kitty i did read that. And jane im confused of what exactly counts as a revision surgery. She has had the mesh fall completely had a dr put it back. Had it taken out as much as they could get. The rest cant be taken out. Had a piece of her skin from her leg used to hold her bladder in place. Gets a uti once a month has since 2005. Is now on disability because of the mesh. Cant pick up her grandkids or go to christmas concerts because she will piss herself! So im so sorry to affend you kitty but for losing my mother in her grandkids life that isnt enough for her! And it shouldn’t be for any of you either.

        • Jimmy June 1, 2017 at 10:23 am - Reply

          Oh and i forgot the 4 rounds of botox shots that arent working and is going to be self cathetering after her last round of botox shots for the rest of her lift!

        • Jane Akre June 1, 2017 at 10:56 am - Reply

          Your lawyer can explain a revision but my understanding is it could include a cutting of the mesh in the doctors office, ie trimming, to a under anesthesia surgery when they go and get it out. Surgery to harvest fascia would not be considered a revision surgery.

          • Jimmy June 2, 2017 at 10:18 am

            So your saying since they physically cant take anymore mesh out of my mom that her case is worth less? Trust me we would all love to see the dr get it all out but its just not possible. I dont understand how a company can ruin a family and its only worth that. But yes my mother is over weight. This is all so depressing. I would like to thibk that my mother being on disability because of the mesh would make this company do the right thing. But i guess here in pur small town it doesnt matter.

          • Jane Akre June 2, 2017 at 1:49 pm

            I’m sorry Jimmy…. it’s all numbers and yes, it isn’t fair.

  7. Payton May 31, 2017 at 1:34 pm - Reply

    Hi Jane , Do you know anything about C.R.Bard being sold to Becton Dickinson and what it means for people like myself who have a case against them pending are they assuming the responsibility for the cases that were with C.R.Bard. Also do you know of any of their cases in South Jersey going to court soon . Thank you for all of your knowledge and updates you share with us your a godsend.

    • Jane Akre June 1, 2017 at 7:56 am - Reply

      Yes I did a story on that… use the search bar.

Leave A Comment