Free Case Evaluation
Connect
With Us

Mesh Makers Want Non-Residents Ousted from Philadelphia Court

SCOTUS, Wikipedia

Mesh Medical Device News Desk, July 11, 2017 ~ Pelvic mesh makers, Johnson & Johnson and Boston Scientific, want 97 transvaginal mesh plaintiffs ousted from Philadelphia Court of Common Pleas following a U.S. Supreme Court decision on personal jurisdiction. 

**NEW* As of Monday, July 10, the judge in the District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri removed 20 talcum powder cases, citing a recent controversial U.S. Supreme Court decision on jurisdiction.


WHY ARE CASES BEING DISMISSED? 

On June 19, a Missouri judge declared a mistrial in a lawsuit filed by the estates of three women who died, allegedly after long-term use of Johnson & Johnson’s talcum powder.

Nothing happened in the courtroom to cause the mistrial.

Instead, earlier the same day, the U.S. Supreme Court (SCOTUS) issued a decision that dealt a blow to injured consumers and their ability to seek redress in the court of their choosing.

Harris Martin Publishing is reporting the latest here.

In an 8-1 vote, the Supreme Court decided that allowing plaintiffs to take their grievances to a favorable court when they don’t live in that state, was venue shopping.

See SCOTUS on Bristol Myers Squibb and BSNF Railway on personal jurisdiction.

The one dissenting vote, Justice Sonia Sotomayor, saw nothing wrong with it, noting that nothing is unfair about taking a massive corporation to court when the plaintiffs are made up of both resident and non-resident plaintiffs. After all, the product is sold nationwide.

Cheryl Ladd for J&J 1982

The reason the St. Louis judge declared the mistrial was that two of the three talcum powder plaintiffs were from another state.  The trial was just beginning so the judge decided a mistrial would be easier than trying the case twice.

The St. Louis court has been a particularly favorable venue for these talcum powder-ovarian cancer cases, awarding millions and huge punitive damages to the injured women.  Another 1,700 women are in line to have their cases heard there.

Now transvaginal mesh cases  are facing the same test in another court.

The legal departments of mesh makers, Boston Scientific (BSC) and Johnson & Johnson (J&J), have asked the Philadelphia Court of Common Pleas to throw out nearly 100 cases filed by plaintiffs who do not reside in Pennsylvania.

With that, potentially $46 million in recent transvaginal mesh injury awards would be challenged.

J&J, from Huffington Post

On June 30, 2017, J&J motioned the court with the misspelled title of, ”Preliminary Ojbections for lack of personal jurisdiction”

Read it  here.

J&J’s attorneys say the plaintiffs lacked personal jurisdiction.

To make its point, Ethicon attached the appeals of Ms. Hammonds and Carlino, both out-of-state plaintiffs who were awarded $12.5 and $13.7 in separate trials by the Philadelphia court.

Another plaintiff, Ms. Engleman, was awarded $20 million by the Philadelphia jury.  She resides in New Jersey, but had surgery in Philadelphia, which could satisfy the personal jurisdiction criteria.

Philadelphia Court of Common Pleas

If the mesh makers get their way, $46 million in recent jury awards would be voided.

Another recent jury award ($2.16 million) in the Philadelphia court went to Sharon Beltz who resides in Pennsylvania.

Boston Scientific’s lawyers also filed a motion arguing that at least six plaintiffs who do not live, work or were injured in Pennsylvania should also have their cases dismissed.

BSC wants the court to reconsider its objection to personal jurisdiction that it filed with the court two years ago.

While defendant corporations call out nonresident plaintiffs, it should not go unmentioned that Boston Scientific is incorporated in Delaware.

BSC takes advantage of the business-friendly tax advantages of that state, but BSC has no principal place of business in Delaware. Its headquarters are in Massachusetts.

If the court agrees, there would be a review of 1,700 talcum powder lawsuits pending in Missouri and 180 transvaginal mesh cases pending in Philadelphia.

Ironically, J&J won its first pelvic mesh case recently.

However, Kimberly L. Adkins is from Ohio, so theoretically, it too would be dismissed from this jurisdiction.   ###

 

41 Comments

  1. Monica says:

    What? This is confusing. Although my case is not in Philadelphia, it is in West Virginia and I’m not in West Virginia, does this mean eventually the cases in West Virginia are going to be dismissed?

  2. Kitty says:

    Wow. Bad news for these ladies that are not from PA..probably they want the millions to stay in the state.

  3. SRA says:

    I am confused as well. What is the difference with MDL?

    • Jane Akre says:

      Multidistsrict litigation is federal court where actions are consolidated. Versus state court in philadelphia, where they are litigated one by one. Put mdl in the search bar if you want to know more.

  4. Dy says:

    Wow,I imagine that the state mdl is better,because they are looked at one by one. I also was in West Virginia and not a good out come for me. Dy

  5. Dy says:

    Looks also like the MLD federal courts where actions are consolidated are getting settlements less than one million verses state courts in Philadelphia.

    • Jane Akre says:

      The women in Philadelphia are going to trial. And you are right, they are getting more than the cases tried in the MDL in Charleston, WV. I wonder if the relative value of a case varies depending on the region of the country. One million dollars in Charleston, WV is not the same as one million dollars in Philadelphia n the eyes of the beholder.

      • Bejah Blue says:

        Interesting…If I were looking at residential property in both areas the homes in one area would tend to be much more expensive than in the other AND the demographics would probably illustrate that one population was considerably more well educated with a higher standard of living and the capacity to protect their assets and demand fair treatment. I am concerned about what this suggests about the way different populations are regarded under the law. Am I delusional or do I smell a rat or a bunch of fat cats or both.

  6. Shirley says:

    Jane does this mean it is already granted? You mean to tell me because of Missouri Court ruling that all courts except NJ where there is a consolidation can dismiss our cases based on jurisdiction? This is not justice because everyone knows seeking representation in our own states that law makers and judges usual reside to the business more so than the injured. These actions are so out of context sounds to me like they are just seeking an easy way out. It doesnt matter our injuries and what it has done to our livelihood. Do we have the right then to seek representation in our own state because of a dismisal? We need answers because its been 5 years and still waiting for a trial and yet now new laws become effective changing all of what we have been waiting for of our chance for a fair trial to seek justice to those whom have harmed us. Feeling pretty upset by this because of all the new laws protecting the manufacturers who have done nothing but making a profit implanting women with toxic materials knowing evidence was destroyed and yet cannot fix what has been done too us. Doesn`t surprise me that`s for sure. The turn of the century is a mass of destruction against women.

    • Jane Akre says:

      Shirley- my understanding is the MDL’s are currently immune from this sort of venue challenge…. i”m not a lawyer as you know and your lawyer can tell you more. the MDL system is supposed to unburden local courts by making rulings consistent, therefore coming to a conclusion sooner. Imagine, if 5 different courts had five different rulings on whether mention of the FDA should be allowed in a mesh case! There would be challenges all over the place and nothing would get done. So having one judge oversee rulings makes them consistent, which even critics of the MDl system have to admit is a benefit. Stay tuned…..It really doesn’t make sense, is my opinion. If you can use a drug or device or product in that state, does it matter if the plaintiff or defendant doesn’t live there? I agree with Sonya Sotomayor, the one dissenting vote on the Supremes.

    • Still Standing says:

      Shirley. This was not a Missouri ruling . The US Supreme Court ruled on a case in California against Bristol Meyer Squibb. They had challenged a California case where non-residents had been joined up a few California residents alleging damages. Bristol Meyer Squibb argued that non residents were not under the jurisdiction of California state courts. The Supreme Court ruled in favor ofBristol Meyers. When this decisionn came down, the Missouri judge declared a mistrial because he knew the new ruling changed everything about state jurisdictions. This was not a ruling just about mesh cases. It was to clarify some other ruling they had decided regarding where litigants could file a lawsuit. They are trying to get rid of what is termed “judicial hell holes” where mass torts are filed because of plaintiff leaning courts such as St. Louis, California, Philadelphia, and Illinois even though the plaintiff doesn’t live there or the business isn’t headquartered there. This is the 3rd ruling on jurisdiction they have made this year. Some attorneys don’t believe this will impact MDLs in federal court, others do believe it will. My thought is that the mesh manufacturers will seek to challenge all of their state and federal court lawsuits in an effort to clarify the ruling. It could result in more delays as they try to sort this out. Whatever happens, I think this leaves the door open for legal challenges for non residents and it could be a card the defendants use at the settlement table.

      • Jane Akre says:

        Thank you for this interpretation. You know big businesses that harm will try to use this to their full advantage.

      • Shirley says:

        Also in their argument to the Philadelphia courts is the Missouri Courts of where 10 plantiffs were exculed from Talc Powder law suit on June 30th of where Plaintiffs were not from the same state of which they reside and/or where they were implanted. Ethicon/JJ attorneys were able to argue points of the Bristol Meyers and railroad cases and won in the Supreme Court. They also are arguing that Philadelphia Courts of common wealth has no jurisdiction to where non-residentual plaintiffs can have their cases heard in their court and seeking representation there because they are not affiliated anyway shape and form to that state. They threw out the Secant Medical, and Prodesco as two of them that has no affiliation of doing business which makes no sense but our attorneys agreed that they cannot sue them for lack of substantial evidence. This is by far over with. I think we have to transfer our cases back to NJ courts if they get their way. So they dont have to pay for their crimes because Judges are tired and these tort cases were never meant to be handled in smaller courts but consolidation is what I believe they are headed for almost like class action suits.

        • Still Standing says:

          You will also have the ability to file in the state where you live. Here is an interesting thing to think about, though. If you have an attorney from California and you want to file your case in say, Texas, because that is where you live, your attorney must get licensed in that state to practice. Same goes I imagine for New Jersey. Some states have reciprocity, but many don’t and attorneys have to start at the bottom and pass that state.’s bar exam. I was reading a law site last night and saw an advertisement for an attorney in Maine. It said call our office if you are a Maine resident. Haven’t seen that specification before in an ad. Licensing to practice in federal courts is a different process entirely. This could really change the legal landscape. I hope your attorneys are staying on top of this and communicating with you about it. I imagine Personal injury attorneys who do mass torts have that federal distinction to practice law and maybe they have their license in some of the states where the judicial hellholes are or they have a partnership with an attorney in a state they want to represent clients in. This will be a very complicated process.

          • Jane Akre says:

            There were a number of local attorneys who stopped up in Charleston WV to partner with out of state firms and provide that “local” connection… no problem. It was worth their while and they became part of the executive committee

          • Still Standing says:

            Jane, There wasn’t a way to continue this discussion under your post, but I’m wondering how that would work in state cases vs federal. Federal law is federal law across the board,, but every single state has different laws that the attorney would have to know to mount a good state case. Why would an attorney in Texas need to partner with an out of state attorney on a state case when they could just handle it themselves and keep the all the money? This could be a big mess. Case costs will definitely go up for the litigant because where multiple cases were filed in state courts and they shared expenses somewhat like an MDL, , now the number of litigants will be less, thus costing more for the plaintiff.

          • Jane Akre says:

            I was referring to the MDL…my understanding ( not a lawyer) is the out of state cases would need to partner with a local attorney to practice there. There is an exception is my understanding. An out of state counsel can do a direct filing order in the MDL allowing them to file directly bypassing the local counsel. The big firms generally do that is my understanding.

          • Shirley says:

            Still Standing Your right it`s all complicated. Especially when my attorney quit the law firm and I don`t know who my attorney is at this point and they wont return my calls when I have left messages says I need to find a local attorney to handle my case but the problem is that no attorneys I have called are taken any more mesh cases. And what is really sad is I`ve been with the firm in Philly since 2012 yet court since 2013 and not much has been done to my case since 2014. So not only am I frustrated because I thought it was sealed in this court system as being okay with jurisdiction of handling my case for 2 years ago. Now this UGH!

  7. Sad says:

    Jane, According to Law 360 news https://www.law360.com/articles/941004/pa-judge-urged-to-move-mesh-cases-after-justices-ruling -an article from Kline & Specter looks like the cases are challenged just as you mentioned to be thrown out because of jurisdiction and/or Plaintiffs not residing there or defendants never sold products that were implanted in injured women there. It was challenged 2 years ago and dismissed. I am praying it`s not granted. This is so unfair for all the injured women and says a lot about our Judicial system for sure. There will be lots more protest I can tell ya there will also be more public redress and J&J BS and Ethicon will be challenged by force of Media if this happens. Many women are injured by their products than what they are aware of and they are sick and tired of the way they are treated by doctors also who treat their injuries as if they are not life threatening. Many women have died not even knowing it was their toxic devices implanted in them that caused other diseases to arise and killed them. I pray one day that they are challenged to test these theories I speak of on one of their employees or one of their attorneys for sure they would have a different outlook on life and what they will see through the eyes of a warrior. I was told in the beginning that my life would change drastically I would be able to walk in comfort and do normal activities with much comfort never did I once believe it was going to effect my livelihood with much more stress and take away my sex life my relationship status plus activities I would normally be doing. I cannot work anymore I cannot shop like I used to I cannot perform duties in the home like I used to without taking breaks and it takes me longer to do these things because of the pain. No doctor will touch me because of the high risks involved. Nothing they claimed happened for me of a better healthier life. The doctors don`t know what to do about explanting the toxic materials totally. They only are trained in implanting them and its by their reps how they perform the operations and tell their patients that these products will help them live and healthier life and be able to live a more productive life without leakage from their bladder or incontinuity and or pain of suffering from retention challenging the getting up through the nightime hours with more rest and assured that no complications which is all a lie. Scar tissues and nerve damage says otherwise not to mention the infections and injuries of other organs and pain that comes on when a nerve shoots up from the vaginal area to your brain without a warning. It`s crazy how these manufacturers and their representatives did not fully test this on a human being before selling them as a product to prolong and live a more productive life theory. They just bypassed the FDA and now they are trying to use supreme court rulings in one state towards saying we cannot obtain a lawyer from commonwealth (Higher Court) than our own judicial courts which lacks jurisdiction. Just as Manufacturer search for the best representation we also (the injured) seek the best representation for our cases to be handled and heard by a more reliable firm who deals and handles these kind of cases. This isn`t binge shopping this is common sense. Everyone who has ever been injured knows you dont hire an attorney locally for lack of equality and control of being trialed fairly in a judicial hearing for lack of interest. This just isn`t practical not in any case. What they are seeking is the easiest way out and cheapest while they still are selling these products because women are afraid to speak up and fight them with every breathe they have. They are pulling at any straws they can to be able to throw all these cases out of court as they have been doing from the start. It`s about power and greed to them and to us it`s about justice and the best way is for us to seek justice is too match their power through a judicial system who will listen to both sides and make a judgement through judge and jury who isnt a kangaroo court. I didn`t find my lawyer through a catalogue or even an add. I did extensive research and challenged the best representation where my case could be heard in a higher court away from my home base to seek justice up against a more powerful group of people (lawyers) who have knowledge and can challenge the judicial system of what I am, have been and will always be going through because of the defective products. None of which they manufactured in the state of Missouri but manufactured in the Eastern states and sold abroad. It`s time to speak for the benefit of what all of us injured warriors of transvaginal mesh have been going through and what it had cost us and continues to do so on a daily basis and it`s time for them to pay in the highest form of a judicial system who hears our pleas. These products need to be more safe and more warnings to those who choose to be implanted with them. We were not conferenced in all the affects this could have on our lives our health. We were not told there would be all the complications because they were suppose to be safe to implant but not fully tested. This is upsetting just knowing they found a loophole to challenge the courts of our choosing. Stay tuned to see what will happen in the next hearing will they or wont they be granted or will the Judge challenge it in another approach??? This still won`t stop us from seeking Justice that`s for sure. Thank You Jane we appreciate you keeping us informed.

    • Jane Akre says:

      Thank you Sad. The court has always been slanted. I remember early on Judge Goodwin didn’t want the women catastrophically injured being wheeled into his courtroom. Why not? They didn’t represent the middle road of injuries. But it is a reality so why not have them represented too? Makes no sense.

  8. S rankin says:

    Can someone explain this to me like I’m a 3year old? I have been awarded in the class action vaginal Mesh lawsuit and reside in Cslifornia where the surgeries were performed. Thank you! I mailed my agreement over a month ago certified with no response or proof that they relieved it. Atty group Beasly. Anyone else with this issue?

    • Jane Akre says:

      Have you received a settlement letter? Beasley Allen is a good group,,,, they’ve headed the talcum powder litigation.. This means the supreme court agreed that you can’t hear you case in any old court…. has to be where you live or where the injury occurred or where the company is headquartered or does business.

      • SRankin says:

        Hi Jane,
        thanks for the info but I am one of the out of state plaintiffs for the Vaginal Mesh Lawsuit and signed my award letter with Beasly asscoc. They are not answering their phones. nor returning voicemail…somethings fishy….

  9. Still Standing says:

    Here is a new ruling regarding out of state residents with Boston Scientific mesh in Philadelphia. Three out of state claims were dismissed today. They will refilecases in the appropriate jurisdiction.

    http://www.thelegalintelligencer.com/id=1202793760838/Three-Pelvic-Mesh-Cases-Moved-Out-of-Phila-Court?slreturn=20170624200835

  10. Advocate says:

    Hi Jane,

    I think it’s time to have a conversation about words and how one chooses to use them. Whoever uttered the phrase “words have consequences” was spot on. Way more times than I can count, I have seen posts stating things as fact, when they couldn’t have been further off base. Too many times shots have been taken at many of us trying to help, only to be followed by comments supporting those misstatements by you and others. When we don’t like the message or it doesn’t fit our personal narrative, we can’t simply push it aside and pursue one more convenient to our view.
    Your statement above is the latest example and I quote; “The court has always been slanted”.

    Here’s where I have issues, because you didn’t state” in my opinion” I, like others, are left to see the statement as factual:
    1. What court? (there are many and varied, both state and federal)
    2. In what way were they slanted? (was there a ruling or precedence they set aside)
    3. Were there particular rules they were required to follow that may not have been obvious to the casual observer? (civil procedures can keep certain items from being admitted)
    4. Why or what motivation would the court have to be slanted? (Do we believe judges sit around “making things up”)
    5. Who are you citing as the validation for this view of a slanted court?

    You, more than anyone on this site, know the influence of your words. The injured here trust your judgment and your opinions. When one is injured, as are these mesh victims, it is easy to lash out in an attempt to “feel” better or to have voiced frustration. It’s indeed, human nature. You can certainly be sympathetic to their cause, but it is my opinion, there is a level of responsibility for the non-injured to keep the information as technically correct as possible. It may not be the popular thing to say or do, but isn’t the point of this site to help inform the injured and provide support? Inserting our opinion or feelings as fact, does not benefit these women who deserve so much more. I’ve seen follow on posts, where the opinions stated as fact, have been taken up as validation of the feelings and beliefs of the readers. Again, the women here deserve better.

    My commitment to you and the others here, is to only state those things that are factual and supported by traditional corroborating sources. If I intend to offer my personal opinion, I will state it as such. I want those who come here with questions that I can truthfully answer or assist with, to feel there is value in my posts. I want my contributions to lead to a better understanding, even when it may not be the most popular of positions.

    Thanks for allowing me to help shine some light in some pretty dark corners. If anyone is interested, I’ll attempt to give my opinions on why Judge Goodwin might make some decisions, like parading of injured or the impact of case venue, in general terms, a bit later.

    • Jane Akre says:

      Okay Advocate…. here is the basis for my opinion. I sat in the court and listened to Judge Goodwin say he did not want extraordinary cases, no extreme catastrophic injuries where women had to be wheeled in in the prone position because they are too injured to walk into the courtroom. He didn’t say wheeled in, but he did say he didn’t want those kinds of cases. However in my limited experience, not so limited since I’ve easily talked to one thousand women, a good number of them are catastrophic injuries. They can’t get out of bed. they must rely on pain medication to dull their body. Judge Goodwin wanted the middle of the road cases, but they do not represent those catastrophic injuries which are a reality!!! Why eliminate a percentage of what represents real injuries? That’s one example. Not a casual shoot from the hip, biased, caustic or cynical statement….Would you call that slanting? I do. Allowing discussion of the FDA’s role in clearing products for market also comes to mind. Defense says that shows an FDA endorsement of a product…..you and I both know it is a paperwork and a clearance to sell the product, nothing more, no assurance of safety and efficacy. To open up the discussion to the role of the FDA of course wastes time but the defense will hang on that argument as long as they can and fight for its inclusion. Also jurors are not allowed to hear that the one case they are hearing, is just one of 100,000 cases filed in the same court. That info is kept from them in case it introduces bias. Yes it will. Perhaps it should. Advocate?

  11. Advocate says:

    Jane, I get where you’re coming from so let me opine for a moment. The focus of Judge Goodwin is/was not to try cases by the sensationalism, or the lack of, the injury. (I’ll address the injury element in a moment.)
    One needs to consider why he asked that none be “wheeled” (our word not his) in. The MDL is not trying cases for the sake of each case as a trial, but to reach a baseline that allows the sides to find mutual ground. Maybe that isn’t the best for all torts and this might be one, but it is the reality. So let’s say that he allows for the severely disabled to be seen. Would he then, in the name of fairness, be obligated to allow the non-injured, those with product in place to also walk in showing NO EFFECTS of the mesh? As a juror, I’m looking from a wheelchair to a sitting, smiling, seemingly fine mesh success? Neither, while maybe not totally equal in numbers, represent the vast majority of victims. Can’t allow one without allowing the other, even if he didn’t say that.
    Now to the pain element for a moment. Of course I have seen and spoken with the plaintiffs who are catastrophic. In the beginning of the tort, there was a challenge to prove pain. We all know pain is subjective, not objective. That’s why many of our removal surgeons went away from the pain level 1 to 10 approach and simply noted pain location specific to mesh location. It was the best way to substantiate that pain existed. It didn’t penalize those with higher tolerances nor diminish those with lower tolerances. Thus the ability to get out of bed, move freely or require few pain meds didn’t adversely affect those who couldn’t. The fact that you have spoken to many on one end of the spectrum does not nullify the other end. It does make for an emotional plea and on my own personal note, I find any level of the injury to be appalling. But excluding the dramatic view of the injured does not prevent us from negotiating more strongly for those with more extenuating injury. These catastrophic cases are being addressed in the settlements, albeit not to the level any of us would have preferred dollar wise.
    Your next concern was the FDA and its function. I totally agree with you. The FDA does not check much in the way of scientific study. They rely on the manufacturer. Of course defense wants to hang the hat on someone else for authority and isn’t the Federal Government a great place for that? FDA needs to be revamped in a way that meets today’s needs and not those of 80 years ago.
    Lastly, bias works both ways. Just like in the situation of the courtroom I mentioned ealier, you have to have balance. Attorneys know that the field is generally level (notice I didn’t say completely or always) and they are tasked with finding ways to make their argument more persuasive. Sometimes that comes from things they are successful in getting in or keeping out. That’s why lawyers get paid what they are paid. What’s in the best interest of fairness is sometimes difficult to accept.
    Anthony Scalia once said…and I paraphrase: As a judge, if you like all the conclusions you reach, you’re probably doing something wrong.

    • Jane Akre says:

      So Advocate, you agree this example is NOT a level playing field? Understand your point about balance, but mesh in place cases should probably have been put aside for another day- when/if they ever have a complication. They may never have one, fortunate for them. Having a mesh alone probably should not have been included in this MDL in all fairness. Stop her statute of limitations if/when her complication arises in the future, which Shlomo Raz says does happen. I do so enjoy our debate!!

      • Jane Akre says:

        Advocate- I thought of something else. Some women have been through so much. loss of everything, job, husband home, they have had to have related surgeries, ie infection removal, drains put in, hysterectomy, they have experienced PTSD, bleeding, chronic infections, on and on. YET- the criteria for settlement is the number of mesh removal surgeries. What about the patient who cannot undergo surgery- either she has no funding, the doctor says its too dangerous, or she had a preexisting condition where she cannot be put under anesthesia. That woman is out in the cold? If you can, please tell me about the genesis of the standard of “Mesh Removals” as a settlement standard. Fascinating. Thank you!!!! Anyone else jump in on that if you will.

        • Advocate says:

          Well I certainly agree that surgeries were a difficult means to define injury, but there were few examples for either side to follow. In the beginning, I don’t think anyone understood what a “revision” surgery, in the sense of mesh, really was. Some of the procedures in a doctors office, like the trimming of the mesh, was considered a surgery. Then it wasn’t. Then there was the requirements of anesthesia and other components and then there wasn’t.
          Then we had unqualified doctors and even those at well known and respected medical universities struggling to get the revisions right. My opinion here, in the beginning, many of these “multiple” surgeries were more about inexperience than a medical requirement. I base that on the revisions done since 2013, that required maybe 2 trips to the OR rather than 18. Yet 18 is a dramatic number and would seem to be rewarded more than those who had a skilled physician, who got it right in a trip or two.
          So why surgeries as a baseline? Probably had more to do with the past torts that had removals or revisions of implants. Hip revisions are a good example of implantation that needed follow on surgeries. Breast implants are another. It’s what both sides of the arguments knew best. We would all agree that people don’t consent to being operated on unless there is severe injury (excluding cosmetic enhancements of course).
          I’m not aware of a situation where a recommendation for removal was made and the patient was physically unable to proceed with surgery, maybe for a variety of reasons, and was not rewarded as if the surgery took place. Perhaps the declining of surgery by someone capable of undergoing a revision, wasn’t granted that surgical level. That was probably more a case by case thing. I think most firms have attempted to explain to the clients the criteria each manufacturer adhered to in the negotiations . We didn’t always get everything we wanted but we tried to get as much as possible. Of course that’s subjective based on who’s eyes are the filter, right? I promise this… not one firm walked in and said yes to the first offer laid out. Those offers had more to do with things like case volume, documentation of injury and overall readiness for trial. That’s just a few things that were involved in the outcome.

      • Advocate says:

        Jane! Have to admit, I busted out laughing at the NOT a level playing field grab! Truth is, it’s never level when you think about it. Things like venue, the bench’s experience prior to being a judge, the likability of the client, the evidence and certainly the skill sets of the combatants!
        These are the issues that make trials such a challenge. While a plaintiff believes their case is a righteous case, in court it’s simply no better than a 50% view point. Defendants believe their position is as righteous, as well. Now in the cases of the mesh issues, these defendants may not really believe they have a high road to morality, but they are companies and companies are not emotionally involved. This, in and of itself, makes for an uneven field.
        To the point you make about mesh in place cases, leaving them out or holding to a later date only benefits the plaintiffs. How is that fair to the defense, if they can’t point to their side of the argument, that many are without injury? See, there’s this little problem that we can’t shake about our judicial system… nobody arrives at trial, already guilty. Therefore, as participants in our judicial process , we have to be willing to bring all of the information to light, including that which we know would not support our position. That’s a fair and unbiased process or as close to such, as any in the world.
        Now I’ll add one last thing about justice. Money does not have a single thing to do with justice. Not one. Look up the definition, there’s no mention of money. So every time someone here says, there’s no justice based on settlement amounts, you’re confusing apples and oranges.
        Justice is a finding of fact by a judge or jury. Punishment is not justice, its the imposition of penalty. So a settlement is not related to justice because there is no admission or finding of guilt and the compensation is loosely tied to the idea of penalty. I know this is more technical than anyone really is interested in, because it’s a word game right? Not really. I take our justice system very seriously. I don’t always like where it leads to, but no other in the world offers as much opportunity. It’s far from perfect, but most of life is not perfect. So to finish angering the natives, settlement dollars are nothing more than negotiations of a corporate profit and loss. For plaintiffs, there will never be enough money to rectify the harm. Past, present or future. I wish it were not true, I prefer something better, but living in denial is not living at all.

  12. mia says:

    my lawyer in ohio said we have to use the lawyers in florida so that wasent my decision hope they dont try that in west virginia thats where the case is now

  13. pissedoff says:

    So does this mean we meshed injured have to go the back of the bus and start over ? To get a new court date? Or do we get presidencies to get our case heard?

    • Jane Akre says:

      Not a lawyer, but the federal court / District court in your state recognizes that even though you are a 2017 case…you do not have to start over doing discovery, it was already done in the MDL, I”m told by one trial lawyer. So no, you are not at the back of the line, was this lawyers opinion.

    • pissedoff says:

      Could you ask this lawyer in his opinion does he feel as though it will take 3-7 years to get another court date?
      Thank you Jane

  14. Kim says:

    Jane, Have any of the court cases won had a client with PUDENDAL NERVE DAMAGE? I had my mesh implanted in 2008 before meshes were FDA approved! I also had another installed for organ prolapse in 2010… both gynacare meshes! I have had similar problems as everyone else such as: infections, bladder incontenance, sexual distinction, depression, 6 surgeries & EXTREME PAIN!! With the Pudendal Nerve damage, I had pain so severe that I considered ending my life… and I have a son & husband to live for! Every doctor I saw, I begged for help to resolve this issue for I knew I could not live with that kind of pain for very much longer! I was on every kind of pain meds such as oxycodone, OxyContin, hydrocodone, phenol & morphine! It’s like having childbirth 24×7 365 days a year! I suffered with this for over 2 years! I found a doctor at Johns Hopkins that used cryoblation to deaden the nerve! He said a lot of people do not make it to him for they end their life due to the pain is unbearable! Another doctor said he would rather be paralyzed from waist down than to have Pudendal Nerve damage! I have been going to Physical Therapy for @ 2 years for that nerve damage & am having to treat Periformis Syndrome which is often found with the Pudendal Nerve damage! I am still in pain but am now able to walk and sit for about 20 mins! Sitting was a huge problem with Pudendal Nerve Damage! I truly was bedridden for over 2 years! I was unable to be in any position other than lying on my side for years! Had I Gone to court, I would have had to be wheeled -in in a bed! I have missed years of my son’s life and was not able to attend any of his school functions or unable to take him anywhere for anything! I could not cook, clean or live life! I have been living in hell for the last 10 years since I had these meshes installed and the last 3 years have been simply unbearable! Just wondering if anyone else has had Pudendal Nerve Damage& if any of the won cases had women with this kind of nerve damage! As for my case, it is being prepared for trial! My attorney and I refused the settlement…

  15. Kristine says:

    BS has agreed to settle with me but no amount as of yet, attorney say 6-9 months before they decide on that. My question is, how long does it take from here?

    • Jane Akre says:

      How long is a rope? There are many factors least of which is any urgency to help make you whole. What is bothersome is that the manufacturer is so much in charge…. and don’t forget that 95% of the plaintiff must agree to participate. that is a difficult task too….. Anyone know why it is necessary to get 95%. Having fewer does not diminish the need and obligation to compensate those who you have injured.

  16. Sea says:

    Since mesh slings were produced in one state, but shipped to another state, this would seem to also be considered. Crossing any state line dealing with any product would have to have consumers laws in place to protect the consumer, thus, making it a national product like any other medical device. Right? Wrong?

Post a Comment

Your email is never published nor shared. Required fields are marked *

*
*

© 2016 - 2017 Mesh Newsdesk. All rights reserved.
This is a Sundown Legal Marketing law firm website.