Wednesday, October 19, 2016

COLLUSION OR COINCIDENCE? PLAINTIFF ATTORNEYS PROTECTING THE SYSTEM, NOT THE PLAINTIFFS? ANTIQUATED ABDOMINAL SACRAL COLPOPEXY ATTACHING THE VAGINA TO THE SPINE WITH POLYPROPYLENE SURGICAL MESH PROTECTED IN A COURT OF LAW AND DOCTORS CAN NOT BE SUED FOR THE HARM THEY CAUSE WOMEN. HOW DID THIS HAPPEN?





1.       Plaintiff Attorneys used an anemic trial strategy despite significant scientific expert evidence and knowledge to the contrary. Ambiguity remains. Hundreds of thousands of women are at risk from unsafe surgical procedures using synthetic surgical mesh in the female pelvis and reproductive system for serious permanent disabling injuries.

2.       Plaintiff Attorneys did not integrate all the causes of the harm from transvaginal mesh procedures in their strategy. The procedure, synthetic surgical mesh and trocar combined in the female pelvis and reproductive system are catastrophic along with comorbidities, age, concomitant procedures, again catastrophic.

3.       The Trial Strategy used was a limited concept of pore size which is difficult to prove and does not integrate the myriad physical and chemical properties of polypropylene synthetic surgical mesh and wound healing, critical to the understanding of mesh injury. Most important physical property: the polypropylene synthetic surgical mesh shrinks itself due to inherent manufacturing defects.

 

Synthetic Surgical Mesh remains on the market. Why?

 

1.       Plaintiff Attorneys,

2.       the American Urogynecological Society (AUGS)

3.       the American College of Obstetrics and Gynecology (ACOG)

4.       Doctors such as Dr. John Miklos and Dr. G. Willy Davila

5.       Hospitals such as Cleveland Clinic and the Mayo Clinic

6.       the United States Food and Drug Administration’s Center for Devices and Radiological Health (FDA’s CDRH)

7.       the director of the CDRH, Dr. Jeffrey Shuren, and David Krause, and other top officials at the FDA and

8.       Johnson & Johnson’s Ethicon

Kept mesh on the market by a series of events.

 

The events listed below culminated in plaintiff’s attorneys proving abdominal sacral colpopexy was a better, safer alternative procedure to Pleivc Organ Prolapse repair through the vagina in bellwether trials in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of West Virginia.
 

January 2012: The FDA’s CDRH issues 522 orders to 33 companies for 99 products they must begin clinical trials testing their synthetic surgical mesh products for safety and efficacy.
April 2012: Dr. John Miklos and Dr. Robert Moore hold doctor conference in Atlanta. Henry Garrard III is only attorney speaker on the agenda. Topic of speech, how doctors can avoid legal liability when implanting mesh
 
April 12, 2012 Mass Torts Made Perfect Panel         
Abdominal Sacral Colpopexy recommended
Pelvic Mesh: How to Represent the Victims
Robert Price, Levin Papantonio Thomas Mitchell Rafferty & Proctor
Amy Eskin, Hersh & Hersh
Henry Garrard, Blasingame Burch Garrard Ashley
Lana Keeton, Truth in Medicine
 
April 27, 2012 Lana Keeton sends letter to all Plaintiff’s Attorneys in the MultiDistrict Litigation warning of the significant dangers of Abdominal Sacral Colpopexy including clinical trials
 
 
May 2012 Johnson and Johnson’s Ethicon will stop selling 5 of their transvaginal mesh products. Only the TVT Secur was removed and the rest of the TVT bladder sling meshes remained on the market.
GYNECARE ProliftTM Pelvic Floor Repair System
GYNECARE Prolift +MTM Pelvic Floor Repair System
GYNECARE ProsimaTM Pelvic Floor Repair System
GYNECARE GYNEMESH MTM Partially Absorbable Mesh
GYNECARE TVT SecurTM System (not all TVT products)
Ethicon also notified FDA's Office of Surveillance and Biometrics of their intention to make a labeling change to the Indication for Use for GYNECARE GYNEMESH PS Nonabsorbable PROLENE Soft Mesh indicating it for abdominal (open or laparoscopic) use only.
 
(ABDOMINAL SACRAL COLPOPEXY!)
With approval of the labeling change by the FDA, the 522 orders for their products were placed on hold and eventually  terminated since the orders were applicable to vaginally placed POP mesh products only. Sales continued in the US and globally under the then current indication until regulatory approval of the labeling change was obtained in each country.
June 2012: Johnson and Johnson’s Ethicon send letter to Judge Joseph Goodwin they are removing 5 products from market
 
September 2012: The applied for approval of label changes for indication for use to Abdominal Sacral Colpopexy was eventually signed by Dr. Ben Fisher at the FDA’s CDRH
 
This Very neat package NEVER publicized Kept Mesh on the Market for use in the Female Pelvis and Reproductive System. This, in my opinion, is a crime against women. It PRESERVES:
a.       Use of mesh for abdominal sacral colpopexy by doctors
b.      The mesh profits for Johnson & Johnson’s Ethicon Gynemesh
c.        Injury to hundreds of thousands of women patients
 
There is NO LEVEL ONE (1) EVIDENCE of success
of abdominal sacral colpopexy despite decades of use.
 
COLLUSION OR COINCIDENCE?

 
 

Tuesday, October 18, 2016

THE DECISION MAKERS and THE PAYEES - - - U.S. DISTRICT COURT for the SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF WEST VIRGINIA PTO 84 dated 08-26-2013 and PTO 207 dated 01-15-2016 COMMON BENEFITS FUND FEE & COST COMMITTEE (FCC) CONTACT INFO IS FROM THE PTO'S ON THE COURTS WEBSITE

THESE 18 ATTORNEYS IN PTO 84 BELOW ARE BEING PAID FROM THE 5% COMMON BENEFIT FUND OF ALL 7 MDLS IN WEST VIRGINIA.

THE MINIMUM AMOUNT OF THE COMMON BENEFIT FUND BASED ON APPROXIMATELY 92,922 CASES THAT POTENTIALLY  SETTLE FOR $40,000.00 EACH WILL BE $1.8 BILLION DOLLARS FOR THE WORK THE 18 HAVE DONE.

READ ALL THE WAY TO THE BOTTOM TO SEE THE 9 PEOPLE WHO DECIDE WHO GETS WHAT PORTION OF THAT MINIMUM $1.8 BILLION DOLLARS.

IT IS MY UNDERSTANDING, THE ATTORNEYS WHO DO THE WORK IN THE MDL'S ARE THE ONES BEING PAID FROM THE 5% COMMON BENEFIT FUND $1.8 BILLION DOLLAR MINIMUM.

THE OTHER 40% BEING WITHHELD FROM YOUR SETTLEMENT IS MOST LIKELY FOR YOUR ORIGINAL ATTORNEY FILING YOUR SHORT FORM COMPLAINT, AND NOT MUCH ELSE. AND PROBABLY ADVERTISING COSTS TO GET YOU TO FIND HIM AND SIGN UP WITH HIM.


AUGUST 26, 2013 THE MDL 2187 C.R. BARD 5% FUND WAS ESTABLISHED BY PTO 84 WHICH YOU CAN FIND ON THE WEST VIRGINIA COURT WEBSITE.


PTO 84 AUGUST 26, 2013 ESTABLISHING MDL 2187 FUND to COMPENSATE and REIMBURSE ATTORNEYS for SERVICES PERFORMED and EXPENSES INCURRED  for MDL ADMINISTRATION and COMMON BENEFIT


Plaintiffs’ Coordinating Co-Leads, Executive Committee And Co-liaison Counsel, consulted

and approved the same among all Plaintiff Steering Committee Counsel

 
Harry F. Bell, Jr.

Plaintiffs’ Co-Liaison Counsel

hfbell@belllaw.com

West Virginia Bar No. 297

The Bell Law Firm, PLLC, P. O. Box 1723 Charleston, WV 25326

(304) 345-1700
 

Paul T. Farrell, Jr.

Plaintiffs’ Co-Liaison Counsel

paul@greeneketchum.com     

West Virginia Bar No. 7433

Greene Ketchum Bailey Walker Farrell & Tweel, P. O. Box 2389, Huntington, WV 25724-2389

(304) 525-9115

 
Carl N. Frankovitch

Plaintiffs’ Co-Liaison Counsel

carln@facslaw.com

West Virginia Bar No. 4746

Frankovitch Anetakis Colantonio & Simon, 337 Penco Road, Weirton, WV 26062

(304) 723-4400

 
Henry G. Garrard, III

Plaintiffs’ Coordinating Co-Lead Counsel and Executive Committee

hgg@bbgbalaw.com

Georgia Bar No. 286300

Blasingame Burch Garrard & Ashley, PC P. O. Box 832, Athens, GA 30603

(706) 354-4000

 
Fred Thompson, III

Plaintiffs’ Coordinating Co-Lead Counsel and Executive Committee

fthompson@motleyrice.com   South Carolina Bar No. 5548

Motley Rice, LLC, 28 Bridgeside Blvd., Mt. Pleasant, SC 29464

(843) 216-9118

 
Bryan F. Aylstock

Plaintiffs’ Coordinating Co-Lead Counsel and Executive Committee

BAylstock@awkolaw.com    

Florida Bar No. 078263

Alystock Witkin Kreis & Overholtz, 17 E. Main Street, Suite 200, Pensacola, FL 32502

(877) 810-4808

 
Clayton A. Clark

Plaintiffs’ Executive Committee

cclark@triallawfirm.com

Texas Bar No. 04275750

Clark, Love & Hutson, G.P., 440 Louisiana Street, Suite 1600, Houston, TX 77002

(713) 757-1400

 
Amy Eskin

Plaintiffs’ Executive Committee


California Bar No. 127668

Levin Simes LLP, 353 Sacramento Street, 20th Floor San Francisco, CA 94111

(415) 426-3000
 

Derek H. Potts

Plaintiffs’ Executive Committee

dpotts@potts-law.com

Missouri Bar No. 44882

The Potts Law Firm, LLP 908 Broadway, 3rd Floor Kansas City, MO 64105

(816) 931-2230

 
Aimee H. Wagstaff

Plaintiffs’ Executive Committee


Colorado Bar No. 36819

Andrus Hood & Wagstaff, PC 1999 Broadway, Suite 4150, Denver, CO 80202

(303) 376-6360
 

Thomas P. Cartmell

Plaintiffs’ Executive Committee

tcartmell@wagstaffcartmell.com       

Missouri Bar No. 45366

Wagstaff & Cartmell, LLP 4740 Grand Avenue, Suite 300 Kansas City, MO 64112

(816) 701-1100
 

Fidelma P. Fitzpatrick

Plaintiffs’ Co-Lead Counsel


Rhodes Island Bar No. 5417

Motley Rice, LLC, 321 South Main Street, Suite 200, Providence, RI 02903

(401) 457-7700

 
Renee Baggett

Plaintiffs’ Co-Lead Counsel

RBaggett@awkolaw.com      

Florida Bar No. 0038186

Aylstock, Witkin, Kreis & Overholtz 17 East Main Street, Suite 200, Pensacola, FL 32502

(850) 202-1010


Mark C. Mueller

Plaintiffs’ Co-Lead Counsel


Texas Bar No. 14623000

Mueller Law, 404 West 7th Street Austin, TX 78701

(512) 478-1236

 
Robert Salim

Plaintiffs’ Co-Lead Counsel

robertsalim@cp-tel.net           

Louisiana Bar No. 11663

Law Offices of Robert L. Salim 1901 Texas Street, Natchitoches, LA 71457

(318) 352-5999

 
Riley Burnett

Plaintiffs’ Co-Lead Counsel


Texas Bar No. 03428900

Law Offices of Riley L. Burnett, Jr. 440 Louisiana, Suite 1600, Houston, TX 77002

(713) 757-1400
 

Benjamin H. Anderson

Plaintiffs’ Co-Lead Counsel


Ohio Bar No. 0067466

Anderson Law Offices, LLC 1360 West 9th Street, Suite 215, Cleveland, OH 44113

(216) 589-0256
 

Martin D. Crump

Plaintiffs’ Co-Lead Counsel


Mississippi Bar No. 10652

Davis & Crump, 1712 15th Street, Suite 300, Gulfport, MS 39501

(228) 863-6000



THE 9 PEOPLE BELOW ARE THE DECISION MAKERS AS TO WHO GETS PAID WHAT FROM THE 5% COMMON BENEFIT FUND BASED ON PT0 207, ALSO ON THE WEST VIRGINIA COURT WEBSITE. INTERESTING, HUH?


 


 
                                          IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF WEST VIRGINIA

 

CHARLESTON DIVISION

 

IN RE: C.R. BARD, INC., PELVIC REPAIR

SYSTEM PRODUCTS LIABILITY LITIGATION                                                MDL 2187

-------------------------------------------------

 

THIS DOCUMENT RELATES TO ALL CASES

 
PTO 207 Common Benefit Fee and Cost Committee (“FCC”)  01-15-2016

 

Henry G. Garrard, III

Blasingame, Burch, Garrard & Ashley, PC, 440 College Ave., Ste. 320, Athens, GA 30601

706-354-4000 706-549-3545 (fax)

hgg@bbgbalaw.com

 

Joseph F. Rice

Motley Rice, LLC, 28 Bridgeside Blvd., Mount Pleasant, SC 29464

843-216-9000 843-216-9450 (fax)

jrice@motleyrice.com

 

Clayton A. Clark

Clark, Love & Hutson, GP 440 Louisiana St., Ste. 1600, Houston, TX 77002

713-757-1400 713-759-1217 (fax)

cclark@triallawfirm.com

 

Carl N. Frankovitch

Frankovitch, Anetakis, Colantonio & Simon, 337 Penco Road, Weirton, WV 26062

304-723-4400 304-723-5892 (fax)

carln@facslaw.com

 

Yvonne Flaherty

Lockridge Grindal Nauen, Suite 2200, 100 Washington Avenue South, Minneapolis, MN 55401

612-339-6900 612-339-0981 (fax)

ymflaherty@locklaw.com

 

Thomas P. Cartmell

Wagstaff & Cartmell, LLP, 4740 Grand Avenue, Suite 300, Kansas City, MO 64112

816-701-1100 816-531-2372 (fax)

tcartmell@wagstaffcartmell.com

 Renee Baggett

Aylstock Witkin Kreis & Overholtz, Suite 200, 17 East Main Street, Pensacola, FL 32502

850-202-1010 805-916-7449 (fax)

RBaggett@awkolaw.com

 

Riley L. Burnett, Jr.

Burnett Law Firm, 55 Waugh Drive, Suite 803, Houston, TX 77007

832-413-4410 832-900-2120 (fax)

rburnett@rburnettlaw.com

 

William H. McKee, Jr.

1804 Louden Heights Road, Charleston, WV 25314

304-546-2347 

bmckee@suddenlink.net

Sunday, October 16, 2016

PLAINTIFFS SHOULD ATTEND MASS TORTS MADE PERFECT - LAS VEGAS - OCTOBER 19-21, 2016 - TO HEAR THEIR ATTORNEYS DISCUSS THEIR LAWSUITS

A lot of focus is placed on getting more cases while actual plaintiffs recieve little, if any, guidance once the complaint has been filed in a multidistrict litigation like the 7 Transvaginal Mesh MDL's in the S.D. of West Virginia.

Special Needs Counsel and/or Elder Law Attorneys should be hired to assist the plaintiffs, not just sent a letter, take it or leave it (the settlement).Plaintiffs are not professionals and depend on the guidance of their attorneys. The relationship between plaintiff and attorney becomes adversarial because of neglect of the plaintiff during intake and during the settlement process.

Plaintiffs should be equipped with ALL the facts so they will be able to make an informed decision. Do I file a lawsuit? Do I accept the settlement? What are my options? Plaintiff's needs are not well served by the current system.


From injury to case settled is a very long journey for plaintiffs and there should be some true assistance to them in coping with the realities of a long legal battle.


PLAINTIFFS DO NOT HAVE LEGAL SKILLS and ARE DEPENDENT on their ATTORNEY'S REPRESENTATIONS to MAKE INFORMED DECISIONS.


PLAINTIFF'S ARE NOT INFORMED! And some are now dead.


Linda Batiste is dead.

Joan Budke is dead.

Joy Poteet is dead.


They did not survive the long legal process but their legal cases have continued.



sad.

Thursday, October 6, 2016

PTO 237 ETHICON MDL 2327 = SETTLEMENT ESCROW = QUALIFIED SETTLEMENT = SECTION 468B of the INTERNAL REVENUE CODE of 1986


ARE YOU A MESH PLAINTIFF AGAINST JOHNSON & JOHNSON - ETHICON IN THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF WEST VIRGINIA MULTI DISTRICT LITIGATION CASE 02327?

ARE YOU ONE OF THE 999 (?) WOMEN SHARING THE $112 (?) MILLION DOLLAR QUALIFIED SETTLEMENT FUND CONTROLLED BY BLASINGAME, BURCH, GARRARD AND ASHLEY?

WANT TO KNOW THE ADVANTAGES OF THE ETHICON QUALIFIED SETTLEMENT FUND CREATED SEPTEMBER 8, 2016 FOR YOU?

DON'T GET EXCITED.....

WHILE BBGBA LEGALLY PAYS THEMSELVES IMMEDIATELY THEIR 40% (?) FEE = $44.8 MILLION DOLLARS of the $112 (?) MILLION UNDER SECTION 468B of the INTERNAL REVENUE CODE of 1986 and ARE ELIGIBLE TO BE PAID THEIR PORTION (?) OF THE 5% ($5.6 MILLION), COMMON BENEFITS FUND YOUR ADVANTAGES ARE LISTED BELOW...
4th below "THE PLAINTIFF'S CAN TAKE THEIR TIME" and
Finally below "TIME IS NO LONGER A PRESSING ISSUE."

AND....

JOHNSON & JOHNSON - ETHICON WILL DEDUCT THE $112 MILLION CLAIM EXPENSE FROM THEIR BOOKS IMMEDIATELY and AS IT ELOQUENTLY SAYS BELOW
First "THEY CAN PAY AND WALK".

WANT TO READ ALL BACKGROUND INFO ON THE CUT & PASTE BELOW....CLICK THIS LINK: http://www.kearnsandkearns.com/news/articles/26-why-trial-lawyers-should-use-s468b-settlement.html

Advantages of the §468B Settlement Funds

First,

funding the §468B trust removes the defendant and their counsel from the litigation.  They can pay and walk.  Once a petition is filed by either party in a court and a Trustee for the fund is appointed, the settlement payment to the Trustee satisfies the economic performance test.  The defendant is out of the case.

Second,

the §468B trust removes the defendant from the allocation of the settlement amounts between the various plaintiffs.  The plaintiffs’ attorney does not have to negotiate with the defense counsel about either the allocation of the settlement between the injured parties or the derivative claim for loss of consortium.

Third,

the plaintiffs’ attorney’s fees and other expenses can be paid immediately from the §468B fund.

Fourth, 

the plaintiffs receive the income from the settlement inside the §468B fund. The plaintiffs can take their time, carefully selecting among the options of a lump sum payment, structured settlement annuity and a special needs trust pursuant to 42 USC §1396p(d)(4)(A).

Finally, time is no longer a pressing factor for the lien negotiations, allocations, and probate proceedings. The settlement can be placed in the settlement trust while other matters are dealt with, such as waiting for the final figures for the Medicare claim and Medicaid lien, determining allocations between plaintiffs, and deciding on a method of payment.

No Constructive Receipt

The economic performance test allows the defendant to pay a settlement into a §468B trust and deduct the claim even though the payout to or for the benefit of the plaintiff occurs later.  However, the §468B trust does not constitute constructive receipt to the plaintiff because of the restrictions placed upon the §468B trust. 

CLICK THIS LINK TO SEE ENTIRE AGREEMENT BETWEEN JOHNSON & JOHNSON - ETHICON and BLASINGAME, BURCH, GARRARD & ASHLEY from the COURT WEBSITE:
http://www.wvsd.uscourts.gov/MDL/ethicon/pdfs/PTO_237.pdf

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF WEST VIRGINIA

CHARLESTON DIVISION

IN RE: ETHICON, INC. PELVIC REPAIR SYSTEM PRODUCTS LIABILITY LITIGATION

MDL NO. 2327

THIS DOCUMENT RELATES TO ALL CASES

PRETRIAL ORDER # 237

 (Order Re: Qualified Settlement Fund-Ethicon & Blasingame, Burch, Garrard & Ashley P.C.)

Pending is an Unopposed Motion for Approval of Qualified Settlement Fund, filed September 7, 2016.

 Blasingame, Burch, Garrard & Ashley, P.C. (“BBGA”), as counsel for certain plaintiffs in this MDL No. 2327 has moved the Court for entry of an Order to aid in the efficient processing and administration of a Confidential Settlement Agreement (the “Settlement Agreement”) between Defendant Ethicon, Inc. and its parent and subsidiary companies (“Ethicon”) and BBGA to resolve the claims of certain claimants against Ethicon relating to the implant of Ethicon Pelvic Mesh Products (as defined in the Settlement Agreement).  [ECF No. 2733].

 
In particular, BBGA’s Motion seeks an Order

(1) approving an Escrow Agreement (the “Escrow Agreement”), attached as Exhibit A, which forms a settlement escrow account (the “Settlement Escrow”),

 (2) retaining continuing jurisdiction and supervision over the Settlement Escrow, and

 (3) determining that the Settlement Escrow constitutes a “qualified settlement fund” within the meaning of section 468B of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended (the “Code”) and Treasury Regulation sections 1.468B-1, et. seq.

The Court, having reviewed the Motion and Escrow Agreement, and finding good and sufficient cause, FINDS and ORDERS the following:

1) The Unopposed Motion is GRANTED;

2) The terms of the Escrow Agreement are hereby approved;

3) The Settlement Escrow constitutes a qualified settlement fund within the meaning of section 468B of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended (“the Code”) and Treasury Regulation sections 1.468B-1, et. seq. The Court further retains continuing jurisdiction and supervision over the Settlement Escrow, in accordance with the terms of the Escrow Agreement; and

4) The appointment of Wells Fargo Bank, National Association to serve as the escrow agent (“Escrow Agent”) pursuant to the Escrow Agreement is approved. The Escrow Agent shall administer the Settlement Escrow in accordance with the terms of the Escrow Agreement.

Further, the funds held by the Escrow Agent in the Settlement Escrow shall be disbursed by the Escrow Agent only pursuant to and in conformance with the terms of the Escrow Agreement and Settlement Agreement, which include provisions for payments into the MDL No. 2327 Fund.

ENTER: September 8, 2016

JOSEPH R. GOODWIN

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE