Check out www.MedDeviceExpertLLC.com

DEVASTATED AT THE LOSS OF MY DRIA...MISS T ALEXANDRIA DAISY JOYEUX...WHO WENT TO BE WITH THE LORD YESTERDAY MORNING...



MY DRIA, MARCH 15, 2008 IN L.A.



MY 18TH BIRTHDAY, JUNE 1, 2013 AT SPRIS ON LINCOLN ROAD IN SOUTH BEACH! I STILL ROCK!

  


MY DRIA, JULY 4TH, 2013 IN MIAMI, FL HOURS BEFORE GOD CALLED HER HOME.



I am completely devastated at the loss of my Dria. God took her home yesterday morning July 5th, 2013 at 6:46 a.m.. Her little body was exhausted and she died in my arms, breathing so hard and her little heart pounding. I will never be the same. I just wish the Lord had taken me, too.

She, and her son B.B. who praise God is still with me, have been my anchor while I suffered so much personal pain and heartache over the last 12 years. Their unconditional love and warmth and caring for me are the reason I am still here today.

My Dria will be buried next to her mom, Allie, next Wednesday, July 10th at Pet Heaven Memorial Park in Miami, Florida. She will have a gorgeous pink satin lined casket with her pink bandana, her new pink collar she got for her birthday and there will be pink roses inside and outside the casket.

I have survived a lot. Not sure I will survive this one. I am profoundly sad at Dria's loss and the hole she left in my heart.



MY DRIA AND MY B.B. MARCH 15, 2008 IN L.A.



LANA & DRIA HAVING FUN APRIL 2, 2008 IN L.A.
























[I HAVE TAKEN DOWN OTHER POSTS TO HIGHLIGHT MY JOURNEY, MY LIFE, MY JOY AND MY PAIN. I AM SO TIRED OF MESH SUCKING THE LIFE OUT OF ME.]

MARK MUELLER: WEST VIRGINIA #MESH MULTIDISTRICT LITIGATION PLAINTIFF'S STEERING COMMITTEE ATTORNEY, "INCOMPETENT MALE CHAUVINIST PIG AT WORK", WHAT A DISASTER FOR THE WOMEN HE REPRESENTS (IN MY OPINION)

I have given Mueller an opportunity to correct the lies in his Super Lawyer and Texas Monthly October 2012 ads. Mueller misled me when I first met him in 2010 to believe he was very interested in making changes for the public good. He talks a good game. 

But seeing him first hand in interactions with his staff and his behavior in front of me personally tell a different story. Since that time I have learned he has a drinking problem, is a male chauvinist who calls Tequila shots "pussy juice", insults his women employees by making jokes about their vagina and who thinks it is funny to fart in public at an FDA Public Advisory Committee meeting.

I am setting the record straight. This is a very crass individual.

       

I am filing a grievance against Mark Mueller with the State Bar of Texas for his misleading and false representations in advertisements and his willful disregard of the Texas Disciplinary Rules of Professional Conduct.

Mueller misled me and used my name, likeness and good will developed over several years with thousands of people to enhance his own stature with prospective clients through Jane Akre and the website he finances, www.meshmedicaldevicenewsdesk.com. Mueller said he wanted to do the right thing for women injured by synthetic surgical mesh which I believed to be true and therefore allowed advertising by Mueller on Truth in Medicine in 2011.

Women who signed with Mark Mueller later contacted me telling me Mueller had had no contact with them for extensive periods of time. I intervened on their behalf and ask for a meeting to discuss the advertisement going forward to no avail. Despite efforts over a two month period to have direct communication with Mueller for assurance he would be properly representing these clients, no telephone or in person meeting was ever held.

i pulled the advertisement from the website before the end of the term. I was put in an untenable position with women and men I was trying to help as a patient advocate because of Mueller’s false representations.

Listening to him speak at a recent conference was the final straw. He spoke as one of the steering committee members for the West Virginia Transvaginal Mesh MDL. His presentation defines him: He said 3 times synthetic surgical mesh is "crap" and "medical marketing". I am very concerned for the people he represents.


  Not only did Mueller make a fool of himself in his presentation at the conference, as I was walking through the reception that night, a room filled with prominent attorneys, I saw Mueller walking through the crowd with a stuffed bear in his hand sitting on a piece of red satin cloth.

The anguish is over. I told what I know. I hope it helps others avoid falling into an attorney/client relationship with him.

TEXAS DISCIPLINARY RULES OF PROFESSIONAL CONDUCT
[underlined sections relate to Mueller false and misleading ads]

Rule 7.02 Communications Concerning a Lawyer’s Services


(a) A lawyer shall not make or sponsor a false or misleading communication about the qualifications or the services of any lawyer or firm. A communication is false or misleading if it:

(1) contains a material misrepresentation of fact or law, or omits a fact necessary to make the statement considered as a whole not materially misleading;

(2) contains any reference in a public media advertisement to past successes or results obtained unless

(i) the communicating lawyer or member of the law firm served as lead counsel in the matter giving rise to the recovery, or was primarily responsible for the settlement or verdict,
(ii) the amount involved was actually received by the client,
(iii) the reference is accompanied by adequate information regarding the nature of the case or matter and the damages or injuries sustained by the client, and
(iv) if the gross amount received is stated, the attorney’s fees and litigation
expenses withheld from the amount are stated as well;

(3) is likely to create an unjustified expectation about results the lawyer can achieve, or states or implies that the lawyer can achieve results by means that violate these rules or other law;

(4) compares the lawyer’s services with other lawyers’ services, unless the comparison can be substantiated by reference to verifiable, objective data;

(5) states or implies that the lawyer is able to influence improperly or upon irrelevant grounds any tribunal, legislative body, or public official;

(6) designates one or more specific areas of practice in an advertisement in the public media or in a solicitation communication unless the advertising or soliciting lawyer is competent to handle legal matters in each such area of practice; or

(7) uses an actor or model to portray a client of the lawyer or law firm.

(b) Rule 7.02(a)(6) does not require that a lawyer be certified by the Texas Board of Legal Specialization at the time of advertising in a specific area of practice, but such certification shall conclusively establish that such lawyer satisfies the requirements of Rule 7.02(a)(6) with respect to the area(s) of practice in which such lawyer is certified.

(c) A lawyer shall not advertise in the public media or state in a solicitation communication that the lawyer is a specialist except as permitted under Rule 7.04.

(d) Any statement or disclaimer required by these rules shall be made in each language used in the advertisement or solicitation communication with respect to which such required statement or disclaimer relates; provided however, the mere statement that a particular language is spoken or understood shall not alone result in the need for a statement or disclaimer in that language.

Comment
1. The Rules within Part VII are intended to regulate communications made for the purpose of obtaining professional employment. They are not intended to affect other forms of speech by lawyers, such as political advertisements or political commentary, except insofar as a lawyer’s effort to obtain employment is linked to a matter of current public debate.

2. This Rule governs all communications about a lawyer’s services, including advertisements regulated by Rule 7.04 and solicitation communications regulated by Rules 7.03 and 7.05. Whatever means are used to make known a lawyer’s services, statements about them must be truthful and nondeceptive.

3. Sub-paragraph (a)(1) recognizes that statements can be misleading both by what they contain and what they leave out. Statements that are false or misleading for either reason are prohibited. A truthful statement is misleading if it omits a fact necessary to make the lawyer’s communication considered as a whole not materially misleading. A truthful statement is also misleading if there is a substantial likelihood that it will lead a reasonable person to formulate a specific conclusion about the lawyer or the lawyer’s services for which there is no reasonable factual foundation.

4. Sub-paragraphs (a)(2) and (3) recognize that truthful statements may create “unjustified expectations” For example, an advertisement that truthfully reports that a lawyer obtained a jury verdict of a certain amount on behalf of a client would nonetheless be misleading if it were to turn out that the verdict was overturned on appeal or later compromised for a substantially
reduced amount, and the advertisement did not disclose such facts as well. Even an advertisement that fully and accurately reports a lawyer’s achievements on behalf of clients or former clients may be misleading if presented so as to lead a reasonable person to form an unjustified expectation that the same results could be obtained for other clients in similar matters without reference to the specific factual and legal circumstances of each client’s case.

Those unique circumstances would ordinarily preclude advertisements in the public media and solicitation communications that discuss the results obtained on behalf of a client, such as the amount of a damage award, the lawyer’s record in obtaining favorable settlements or verdicts, as well as those that contain client endorsements.

5. Sub-paragraph (a)(4) recognizes that comparisons of lawyers’ services may also be misleading unless those comparisons “can be substantiated by reference to verifiable objective data.”

Similarly, an unsubstantiated comparison of a lawyer’s services or fees with the services or fees of other lawyers may be misleading if presented with such specificity as would lead a reasonable person to conclude that the comparison can be substantiated. Statements comparing a lawyer’s services with those of another where the comparisons are not susceptible of precise
measurement or verification, such as “we are the toughest lawyers in town”, “we will get money for you when other lawyers can’t”, or “we are the best law firm in Texas if youwant a large recovery” can deceive or mislead prospective clients.

Refers to “’medieval’ treatment of women” in the ads while Mueller himself uses despicable terms in referring to women with his employees and sub-contractors. Mueller disrespects women.  

6. The inclusion of a disclaimer or qualifying language may preclude a finding that a statement is likely to create unjustified expectations or otherwise mislead a prospective client, but it will not necessarily do so. Unless any such qualifications and disclaimers are both sufficient and displayed with equal prominence to the information to which they pertain, that information can still readily mislead prospective clients into believing that similar results can be obtained for them without reference to their specific factual and legal circumstances. Consequently, in order not to be false, misleading, or deceptive, other of these Rules require that appropriate disclaimers or qualifying language must be presented in the same manner as the communication and with equal prominence. See Rules 7.04 (q) and 7.05(a) (2).

7. On the other hand, a simple statement of a lawyer’s own qualifications devoid of comparisons to other lawyers does not pose the same risk of being misleading so does not violate sub-paragraph (a)(4). Similarly, a lawyer making a referral to another lawyer may express good faith subjective opinion regarding that other lawyer.

8. Thus, this Rule does not prohibit communication of information concerning a lawyer’s name or firm name, address and telephone numbers; the basis on which the lawyer’s fees is determined, including prices for specific services and payment and credit arrangements; names of references and with their consent, names of clients regularly represented; and other truthful information that might invite the attention of those seeking legal assistance. When a communication permitted by Rule 7.02 is made in the public media, the lawyer should consult Rule 7.04 for further guidance and restrictions. When a communication permitted by Rule 7.02 is made by a lawyer through a solicitation communication, the lawyer should consult Rules 7.03 and 7.05 for further guidance and restrictions.

9. Sub-paragraph (a)(5) prohibits a lawyer from stating or implying that the lawyer has an ability to influence a tribunal, legislative body, or other public official through improper conduct or upon irrelevant grounds. Such conduct brings the profession into disrepute, even though the improper or irrelevant activities referred to are never carried out, and so are prohibited without
regard to the lawyer’s actual intent to engage in such activities.

Communication of Fields of Practice

10. Paragraphs (a)(6), (b) and (c) of Rule 7.02 regulate communications concerning a lawyer’s fields of practice and should be construed together with Rule 7.04 or 7.05, as applicable. If a lawyer in a public media advertisement or in a solicitation communication designates one or more specific areas of practice, that designation is at least an implicit representation that the lawyer is qualified in the areas designated. Accordingly, Rule 7.02(a)(6) prohibits the designation of a field of practice unless the communicating lawyer is in fact competent in the area.

11. Typically, one would expect competency to be measured by special education, training, or experience in the particular area of law designated. Because certification by the Texas Board of Legal Specialization involves special education, training, and experience, certification by the Texas Board of Legal Specialization conclusively establishes that a lawyer meets the
requirements of Rule 7.02(a)(6) in any area in which the Board has certified the lawyer.

However, competency may be established by means other than certification by the Texas Board of Legal Specialization. See Rule 7.04(b).

12. Lawyers who wish to advertise in the public media that they specialize should refer to Rule 7.04. Lawyers who wish to assert a specialty in a solicitation communication should refer to Rule 7.05.

Actor Portrayal Of Clients

13. Sub-paragraph (a)(7) further protects prospective clients from false, misleading, or deceptive advertisements and solicitations by prohibiting the use of actors to portray clients of the lawyer or law firm. Other rules prohibit the use of actors to portray lawyers in the advertising or soliciting lawyer’s firm. See Rules 7.04(g), 7.05(a). The truthfulness of such portrayals is extremely difficult to monitor, and almost inevitably they involve actors whose apparent physical and mental attributes differ in a number of material respects from those of the actual clients portrayed.

The use of a stuffed bear in the advertisement makes a mockery of seriousness of the harm suffered by the synthetic surgical mesh clients represented.

Rule 7.03 Prohibited Solicitations & Payments


(a) A lawyer shall not by in-person contact, or by regulated telephone or other electronic contact as defined in paragraph (f), seek professional employment concerning a matter arising out of a particular occurrence or event, or series of occurrences or events, from a prospective client or nonclient who has not sought the lawyer’s advice regarding employment or with whom the lawyer has no family or past or present attorney-client relationship when a significant motive for the lawyer’s doing so is the lawyer’s pecuniary gain. Notwithstanding the provisions of this paragraph, a lawyer for a qualified nonprofit organization may communicate with the organization’s members for the purpose of educating the members to understand the law, to recognize legal problems, to make intelligent selection of counsel, or to use legal services. In those situations where in-person or telephone or other electronic contact is permitted by this paragraph, a lawyer shall not have such a contact with a prospective client if:

(1) the communication involves coercion, duress, fraud, overreaching, intimidation, undue influence, or harassment;

(2) the communication contains information prohibited by Rule 7.02(a); or

(3) the communication contains a false, fraudulent, misleading, deceptive, or unfair statement or claim.

(b) A lawyer shall not pay, give, or offer to pay or give anything of value to a person not licensed to practice law for soliciting prospective clients for, or referring clients or prospective clients to, any lawyer or firm, except that a lawyer may pay reasonable fees for advertising and public relations services rendered in accordance with this Rule and may pay the usual charges of a lawyer referral service that meets the requirements of Occupational Code Title 5, Subtitle B, Chapter 952.

CELEBRATING THE BEAUTY OF MY WESTIE ANGEL, ALEXANDRA DAISY ALLIE MAE IN LIFE AND IN DEATH....



IN HONOR OF MY WONDERFUL ALEXANDRA DAISY ALLIE MAE
MAY 12, 1990 - DECEMBER 27, 2005
DRIA, B.B. AND I PLACED FLOWERS ON HER GRAVE IN HONOR OF HER
23rd BIRTHDAY, MOTHER'S DAY 2013.
I STILL LOVE AND MISS MY ALLIE SO MUCH.
SHE BRINGS BLESSINGS TO ME EVERY DAY OF MY LIFE BECAUSE I STILL HAVE 
HER DAUGHTER, DRIA AND HER GRANDSON, B.B.
I AM ETERNALLY THANKFUL FOR ALL THE JOY IN MY LIFE
SINCE MY ALLIE WAS BORN 23 YEARS AGO!





WHAT A BUNDLE OF JOY...ALL MY ANGELS!
LANA, B.B. , DRIA, AND ALLIE (lt to rt) 2003




DRIA AND B.B. WISH ALLIE HAPPY BIRTHDAY AND HAPPY MOTHER'S DAY WITH FLOWERS! :)




ALEXANDRA DAISY ALLIE MAE'S MEMORIAL HEADSTONE





LANA HONORING THE MEMORY OF HER ANGEL, ALLIE
WITH HER DAUGHTER, DRIA AND HER GRANDSON, B.B.!



PROMINENT CLASS ACTION ATTORNEY STANLEY CHESLEY PERMANENTLY DISBARRED FOR FEE SCHEME IN $200 MILLION DOLLAR FEN-PHEN SETTLEMENT

FOUR HUNDRED (400) PLAINTIFFS GOT $46 MILLION DOLLARS.

ONE (1) ATTORNEY, STANLEY CHESLEY GOT PAID $20 MILLION DOLLARS FOR HIS INVOLVEMENT IN THE SETTLEMENT NEGOTIATIONS ONLY...HE DID NOT EVEN APPEAR AT TRIAL. HE LOST HIS LICENSE TO PRACTICE LAW BUT DID NOT HAVE TO REPAY THE MONEY.

THE PATIENTS WERE PAWNS IN THIS CLASS ACTION LAWSUIT WHERE MILLIONS OF DOLLARS WERE PAID IN CONFIDENTIAL SETTLEMENTS AND EVEN THE JUDGE COLLUDED WITH THE ATTORNEYS.

HOW DO PATIENTS KNOW THEY ARE RECEIVING THEIR FAIR SHARE OF SETTLEMENTS IN CLASS ACTIONS AND MASS TORTS?  ANSWER: THEY DON'T.

JUST LIKE HEALTHCARE, PATIENTS WHO BECOME PLAINTIFFS ARE IN THE DARK WITH LITTLE OR NO INFLUENCE OVER A MAJOR LIFE ALTERING EVENT.

WE CAN ONLY HOPE THERE ARE NOT ANY "STANLEY CHESLEYS" IN THE ONGOING MESH LAWSUITS ALL ACROSS THE COUNTRY!


http://www.businessweek.com/articles/2013-03-22/stanley-chesley-titan-of-the-plaintiffs-bar-crashes-and-burns
Bloomberg Business Week 03/22/2013 by Paul Barrett, assistant managing editor and senior writer.  

"STANLEY CHESLEY, TITAN OF THE PLAINTIFF'S BAR, CRASHES AND BURNS" 

The big-time plaintiffs’ bar justifies its multimillion-dollar fees by claiming to vindicate the “little guy.” Justice ain’t free, according to free-wheeling trial lawyers, and taking on (alleged) corporate villains requires heavy pecuniary incentives.

Sadly, the titans of this elite segment of the bar have a tendency to flame out in spectacular bursts of greed and deceit, undercutting their claims of righteous dedication. The latest example is famed class-action attorney Stanley Chesley of Cincinnati, for decades one of the leading scourges of industries that range from pharmaceuticals, to chemicals, to firearms.

The Kentucky Supreme Court on March 21 upheld Chesley’s disbarment in that state for “unreasonable” fees received in the settlement of a class action originally filed in 1999 against Wyeth, now part of Pfizer. The allegation stemmed from $20 million in fees Chesley received for his involvement in an action concerning the diet drug known as fen-phen (fenfluramine/phentermine), which was shown to cause harmful side effects. The case was settled in 2001 for $200 million.

Under Ohio’s Rules of Professional Responsibility for lawyers, the disbarment in Kentucky may provide grounds for Chesley to get drummed out of the legal trade in his home state, as well.

Here’s a helpful description of Chesley’s troubles from Bloomberg News:

“In 2009, two Kentucky lawyers involved in the case were sentenced to 20 years and 25 years in prison for stealing from the [diet drug] settlement fund. The lawyers had contracts entitling them to fees of as much as one-third of the $200 million awarded to a statewide group of Kentucky citizens who said they were harmed by diet drug. The lawyers tried to keep more than twice that amount, prosecutors said.


In its 38-page decision, the Kentucky Supreme Court noted that Chesley didn’t meet directly with any of the clients to effectuate the settlement, and it wasn’t shown that he had specific knowledge of the deception practiced on each client to secure the signed release.

The court did find that his “$20,497,121.87 share of the fee was unreasonable, especially in light of his professed ignorance and lack of responsibility for any aspect of the litigation except showing up at the mediation and going through the motions of announcing the agreement.”


BE SURE TO READ THE WHOLE STORY AT BLOOMBERG...IT'S WAY TOO JUICY TO MISS!

FROM MY PERSPECTIVE AS A PATIENT, A PATIENT ADVOCATE AND A LEGAL CONSULTANT, THIS IS A MESS CREATED BY BAD LAWS, BAD DRUGS AND DEVICES AND GREED. IT IS A SYSTEMIC ISSUE CREATED BY THE AMERICAN HEALTHCARE SYSTEM WHICH DOES NOT PROTECT PATIENTS.

MY ADVICE: STAY WELL, STAY OUT OF THE HOSPITAL AND DON'T TAKE DRUGS UNLESS ABSOLUTELY NECESSARY. YOU MAY BE UNKNOWINGLY HARMING YOURSELF!

BEST, BLESSINGS, LANA

STOP THE MADNESS! PROLIFT GYNEMESH PELVIC ORGAN PROLAPSE MESH KITS AND DEPUYASR METAL-ON-METAL HIP IMPLANTS DESTROY HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS WHILE J&J DENIES LIABILITY!

Press Releases for verdicts in trials are written in the most sterile language.   None of them are written as though there are humans injured in the process. The companies...in particular, Johnson & Johnson....have never done anything wrong. There are 96,000 people worldwide implanted, and suffering with, these ASR metal-on-metal hip implants, they have recalled them and THEY HAVE DONE NOTHING WRONG?

This makes me think of Al Pacino in the movie "The Devils Advocate" with Keanu Reeves. The devil has sold everyone out AND THEY HAVE DONE NOTHING WRONG?

What planet do these people live on? Are they humans who live on this Earth? All this "SPEAK" is for Wall Street so their stock does not lose value.

But really, how does this happen day after day after day? These people have definitely sold their souls to the devil.

Let's put Christy Jones at the top of the list. She stands there day after day presenting a case against Linda Gross.

Does Christy Jones go home and take off her skin like David Bowie in "The Man Who Fell to Earth" a 1976 sci-fi flick ? (Guess that dates me for sure. How many reading this ever heard of, much less saw, that movie? See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Man_Who_Fell_to_Earth_(film) for the plot.)

INSANITY! What else could it be? Cause this is NOT NORMAL!!!

THESE ARE SICK "HUMAN" BEINGS WHO PREY ON OTHER HUMANS IN THE NAME OF "HEALTHCARE".

OH PLEASE, SOMEONE STOP THE MADNESS!
  
MASS DEVICE REPORTS > > > >

FLASH: Jury deems J&J's DePuy ASR XL hip implant defective in design, orders $8.3M in damages

Johnson & Johnson defends its DePuy subsidiary's ASR XL hip devices after a California jury finds that the metal-on-metal implants were defectively designed, awarding plaintiff Loren Kransky $8.3 million in compensatory damages.

A California jury ruled against Johnson & Johnson (NYSE:JNJ) and its DePuy subsidiary in finding that the company's ASR XL metal-on-metal hip implant was defectively designed.

The decision marks the highly anticipated close of the 1st of more than 10,750 such lawsuits against J&J. The jury dismissed claims that J&J failed to properly warn physicians about the risks of its metal hip implants, but ruled that the company was negligent and ordered J&J to pay $8.3 million in damages to patient Loren Kransky.

J&J issued a statement today defending its hip implant design and noting that it plans to appeal the ruling, adding that the jury rejected the plaintiff's claim for punitive damages on top of compensatory damages.

"We believe ASR XL was properly designed, and that DePuy's actions concerning the product were appropriate and responsible," DePuy spokeswoman Lorie Gawreluk said in prepared remarks. "We plan to appeal the jury's decision on design defect pending the outcome of post-trial motions. We believe we have a number of valid grounds for appeal, notably that the court didn't let the company tell the jury about the Food & Drug Administration's review and clearance of the device."

Johnson & Johnson pulled the DePuy ASR device in 2010 on reports of an abnormally high number of revision surgeries, later revealing that the recall cost it $271 million during the 1st quarter last year. An internal company study found that 1 in 3 metal hips could fail in less than 5 years, according to testimony in the Kransky case unveiled in January.

And regulators in the U.S. have launched a probe into possible marketing violations for the ASR hip
  LINK TO POST ABOVE: http://www.massdevice.com/news/flash-jury-deems-jjs-depuy-asr-xl-hip-implant-defective-design-orders-83m-damages?page=show

AMERICAN MEDICAL SYSTEMS: NOT ENOUGH INSURANCE MONEY TO COVER ALL TRANSVAGINAL MESH LAWSUITS?

MILLIONS OF DOLLARS IN FINANCIAL LOSSES FOR SELLING BAD MEDICAL DEVICES DOES NOT COMPARE TO THE DESTRUCTION AND DEVASTATION OF THOSE MEN AND WOMEN LIVING WITH SYNTHETIC SURGICAL MESH IMPLANTED INSIDE THEM.

THE PEOPLE AT AMERICAN MEDICAL SYSTEMS GET TO GO HOME AND FORGET ABOUT MESH AT THE END OF THE DAY DESPITE A $640 MILLION DOLLAR LOSS.

MESH INJURED PATIENTS LIVE A 24/7 NIGHTMARE NO ONE SHOULD EVER HAVE TO ENDURE!

Below under "VAGINAL MESH CASES" you will read an excerpt from the legal proceedings section of Endo Health Solution's third-quarter 2012 financial report to the Securities and Exchange Commission.

Endo apparently made a really bad buy when they acquired American Medical Systems (AMS) for $2.9 billion dollars in April 2011. The FDA's July 13, 2011 warning that complications are NOT RARE with all pelvic organ prolapse (POP) surgical mesh kits used to repair POP, including AMS 28 pelvic mesh products, precipitated the flood of transvaginal mesh lawsuits against AMS and many other surgical mesh manufacturers.

I am very proud of the results of the leadership of myself and Truth in Medicine in getting the FDA warnings issued. Without the dedication and perseverance of many mesh injured patients giving their testimony and telling their stories at CDRH Town Hall Meetings, the IOM FDA 510(k) workshops, Truth in Medicine's Capitol Hill Briefing on May 17, 2011, the Truth in Medicine Conference in Washington, D.C. in September 2010, this would not have happened.

WE ALL MADE A DIFFERENCE!!!

I WANT TO RECOGNIZE AND THANK THOSE MEN AND WOMEN WHO TRAVELED UNDER VERY DIFFICULT CIRCUMSTANTCES...WE ALL LIVE IN CONSTANT PAIN AND OUR LIVES HAVE BEEN SEVERELY IMPACTED BY A GARBAGE PIECE OF PETROLEUM WASTE, SYNTHETIC SURGICAL MESH.

JANET HOLT
DENISE JACOBS
JANE PENNINGTON
MARIAN GOLDBERG
DAVID SCHMIDT
JENNIPHER SMITH
BRUCE ROSENBERG
DIANNE KELLEY
MARK BOONE
MARCIA KIRBY
JAYE NEVAREZ
WENDY BRADLEY
SARAH MCFARLAND

AND MANY, MANY MORE WHO ARE, AND HAVE BEEN, OUT THERE SPEAKING OUT TO STOP THE INSANITY OF MESH!!!

The following is a cut and paste from page 40 on the SEC filing you will find in this link:
http://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1100962/000110096212000029/endp-9302012x10q.htm

Vaginal Mesh Cases

On October 20, 2008, the FDA issued a Public Health Notification regarding potential complications associated with transvaginal placement of surgical mesh to treat pelvic organ prolapse (POP) and stress urinary incontinence (SUI). The notification provides recommendations and encourages physicians to seek specialized training in mesh procedures, to advise their patients about the risks associated with these procedures and to be diligent in diagnosing and reporting complications.

In July 2011, FDA issued an update to the October 2008 Public Health Notification regarding mesh to further advise the public and the medical community of the potential complications associated with transvaginal placement of surgical mesh to treat POP and SUI. In this July 2011 update, the FDA maintained that adverse events are not rare, as previously reported, and questioned the relative effectiveness of transvaginal mesh as a treatment for POP as compared to non-mesh surgical repair. The July 2011 notification continued to encourage physicians to seek specialized training in mesh procedures, to consider and to advise their patients about the risks associated with these procedures and to be diligent in diagnosing and reporting complications. FDA also convened an advisory panel which met on September 8-9, 2011 to further address the safety and effectiveness of transvaginal surgical mesh used to treat POP and SUI. At the conclusion of the meetings, the advisory panel recommended reclassifying transvaginal mesh products used to treat POP to Class III devices (premarket approval) and recommended that manufacturers of these products be required to conduct additional post-market surveillance studies. The advisory panel recommended that transvaginal surgical mesh products used to treat SUI remain as Class II devices. Regarding retropubic and transobturator (TOT) slings, the advisory panel recommended that no additional post-market surveillance studies are necessary. Regarding mini-slings, the advisory panel recommended premarket study for new devices and additional post-market surveillance studies. The advisory panel’s recommendations are now under consideration by FDA.

On January 3, 2012, the FDA ordered manufacturers of transvaginal surgical mesh used for pelvic organ prolapse and of single incision mini-slings for urinary incontinence, such as AMS, to conduct post-market safety studies and to monitor adverse event rates relating to the use of these products. These class-wide post-market study orders apply to eighteen AMS pelvic floor repair and mini-sling products. AMS is in the process of complying with these orders. In these orders, the FDA also noted that it is still considering the recommendation of the September 9, 2011 advisory committee that urogynecological surgical mesh for transvaginal repair of pelvic organ prolapse be reclassified from Class II to Class III.

Since 2008, AMS, and more recently, in certain cases the company or certain of its subsidiaries, have been named as defendants in multiple lawsuits in various federal and state courts, as well as in Canada, alleging personal injury resulting from use of transvaginal surgical mesh products designed to treat pelvic organ prolapse and stress urinary incontinence. Plaintiffs in these suits allege various personal injuries including chronic pain, incontinence and inability to control bowel function, and permanent deformities. On February 7, 2012, a multidistrict litigation (MDL) was formed, and cases pending in federal courts are now consolidated in the Southern District of West Virginia as part of MDL No. 2325. Similar cases in various state courts around the country are also currently pending. More specifically, as of October 30, 2012, approximately 2,960 mesh cases are currently pending against AMS and/or the Company or certain of its subsidiaries. Litigation similar to that described above may also be brought by other plaintiffs in various jurisdictions. The majority of the currently pending cases are in the MDL.

In addition, we have been contacted regarding a civil investigation that has been initiated by a number of state attorneys general into mesh products, including transvaginal surgical mesh products designed to treat pelvic organ prolapse and stress urinary incontinence. We have not yet received a subpoena relating to this investigation, and at this time, we cannot predict or determine the outcome of this investigation or reasonably estimate the amount or range of amounts of fines or penalties, if any, that might result from a settlement or an adverse outcome from this investigation.

AMS and the Company intend to vigorously contest all currently pending cases and any future cases that may be brought, if any, and to explore other options as appropriate in the best interests of AMS and the Company.

Nevertheless, we believe it is reasonably possible that the outcomes of such cases could result in losses in excess of insurance reimbursement levels that could have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition, results of operations and cash flows. However, we are unable to estimate an amount of possible loss or range of possible loss in excess of the insurance reimbursement levels.

THE ONLY GOOD NEWS HERE FOR MESH INJURED PATIENTS WHO HAVE SUED AMERICAN MEDICAL SYSTEMS IS, ENDO HEALTH SOLUTIONS BOUGHT THEM IN 2011 AND WILL HOPEFULLY HAVE THE MONEY TO COVER WHAT THEIR INSURANCE DOES NOT.

HAPPY 90TH BIRTHDAY, KENNETH KEETON!!

TODAY I HONOR MY FATHER, KENNETH KEETON, A GREAT GUY, AN HONORABLE, KIND LOVING MAN WHO IS SO MISSED, EVEN 5O YEARS LATER......

HAPPY 90TH BIRTHDAY DADDY!!

I AM SO BLESSED BECAUSE THE LOVE YOU AND MAMA GAVE ME WHEN YOU WERE HERE ON EARTH GIVES ME STRENGTH EVERY SINGLE DAY OF MY LIFE....

YOU ARE MY ALWAYS HERO!

I WILL MISS YOU AND MAMA AS LONG AS I LIVE.

WITH ALL MY LOVE, YOUR DAUGHTER, LANA

LAWSUITS OVER AMERICAN MEDICAL SYSTEMS “ELEVATE” PELVIC ORGAN PROLAPSE MESH KIT "DEFLATES" ENDO HEALTH SOLUTIONS TO THE TUNE OF $640 MILLION – NOW WE ARE TALKING!!!

PRAISE GOD LINDA AND JEFF GROSS WON $11.1 MILLION VS ETHICON AND JOHNSON & JOHNSON…..WHAT SHE REALLY DESERVES IS HER LIFE BACK AND THE $11.1 MILLION, TOO!

BUT THE SOUND OF $640 MILLION DOLLARS OF PROFIT BEING SUCKED OUT OF ONE OF THESE DISGUSTING MESH COMPANIES IS REAL, REAL MUSIC TO MY EARS!!!

NO APPEAL. NO DEFENSE ATTORNEYS “BEGGING” THE JURY FOR MERCY. JUST $640 MILLION DOLLARS DOWN THE DRAIN FOR THE HORRIFIC PAIN AND AGONY THEY HAVE CAUSED TO THOUSANDS AND THOUSANDS OF WOMEN

HALLELUJAH!!!!!

Guess Dr. G. Willy Davila may be looking for new consulting positions to supplement his income at the Cleveland Clinic. His ‘leadership” and “ground breaking work in women’s pelvic health” is over.

Dr. G. Willy Davila operated on me for 7 years but never removed enough of the mesh out of my bladder to stop the pain. Dr. G. Willy Davila caused me immense ongoing pain by allowing the Ethicon Gynecare TVT Prolene polypropylene bladder mesh sling to keep sawing its way back into my bladder time, after time, after time following those awful in-office trimmings or surgeries in the hospital.

Nor did he bother to mention in deposition testimony or in his testimony at trial in my medical malpractice lawsuit against Dr. Bernard Cantor and Mt Sinai Medical Center in Miami Beach that he was a mesh consultant for American Medical Systems. Would have been nice for the jury to know he was not representing who he REALLY was.

Now maybe the insanity of mesh will end. Finally a blow big enough to get the attention of these greedy corporations that maybe, just maybe, mesh IS NOT A GOOD IDEA.

Years and years and years of my life have been dedicated to stopping the use of mesh FOR ANY REASON…HERNIA, BLADDER SUSPENSION OR PELVIC ORGAN PROLAPSE.

AT MEDIATION WITH ATTORNEY JEFFREY SHAPIRO, ARNSTEIN & LEHR LLP IN MIAMI AND THE ETHICON REPRESENTATIVE IN THE SUMMER OF 2007, I ASK FOR $7 MILLION DOLLARS FOR THE HARM CAUSED TO ME BY THEIR GYNECARE TVT SLING. I WAS OFFERED $5,000.00. I SAID “NO”!!

YOU KNOW, I THINK THAT WOULD HAVE BEEN THE CHEAPEST $7 MILLION J&J, ETHICON, GYNECARE EVER SPENT CAUSE I HAVE BEEN RAISING A RUCKUS EVER SINCE!

BUT THEN, IT WOULD HAVE KEPT ME FROM BEING A VOICE FOR ALL THE MEN AND WOMEN WHO DON’T HAVE ONE AND WHO ARE SO INJURED THEY CAN’T EVEN GET OUT OF BED!

PRAISE GOD!! THE WALLS ARE CRUMBLING!!

BELOW IS CUT & PASTE FROM PHILADELPHIA BUSINESS JOURNAL….

Endo Reports Fourth Quarter Financial Results And Reaffirms 2013 Financial Guidance

PR Newswire MALVERN, Pa., Feb. 28, 2013 /PRNewswire/ --

"- Total quarterly revenues of $801 million, comparable to prior year.

- Fourth quarter reported diluted (GAAP) loss per share of $6.35 includes a $640 million non-cash asset impairment charge related primarily to goodwill- Fourth quarter adjusted diluted EPS of $1.62 increased by 16 percent versus prior year; Full year 2012 adjusted diluted EPS of $5.02 was in-line with financial guidance.

- Company continues to expect 2013 revenues in the range of $2.80 billion to $2.95 billion.

- Company continues to expect 2013 adjusted diluted EPS in the range of $4.40 to $4.70;

- Company expects reported diluted (GAAP) EPS in the range of $2.22 to $2.52.

Endo Health Solutions (Nasdaq: ENDP) today reported total revenues during the fourth quarter of 2012 of $801 million, relatively flat when compared to $803 million in the same quarter of 2011. Endo incurred a net reported loss for the three months ended Dec 31, 2012 of $716 million, compared with reported net income of $37 million reported in the comparable 2011 period.

The net loss reported for the period includes the effect of a non-cash charge in the amount of $714 million for the period to reflect the impairment of certain assets. The primary driver for this charge is a $640 million reduction in  other intangible assets attributable to the company's AMS segment.
The net reported loss reported for the period also includes a charge in the amount of $232 million for the period reflecting the impact of accruals for legal and other contingencies. ...The remainder of this charge reflects a $92 million reserve for product liability claims."READ THE WHOLE ARTICLE AT...
http://www.bizjournals.com/philadelphia/prnewswire/press_releases/Pennsylvania/2013/02/28/PH68717

LINDA GROSS VS. ETHICON....J&J Owes $7.76 Million in Punitives in Vaginal Mesh Case...IT'S NOT ENOUGH!

The CRIMINALS at J&J and Ethicon and Gynecare and Ethicon's Women's Health and Urology should go to PRISON!!!

$57,000,000.00 Million Dollars a Day in Advertising....

How much to they pay the doctors to go out and front for them?

How much do they pay their sales reps to go out there and lie for them?

How much do they pay for lobbyists for Congress to keep their filthy products on the market?

How much do they pay their CEO's and CFO's and Attorneys to go out there and keep causing harm to innocent people?

J&J IS A DISGUSTING CORPORATE CRIMINAL!!!!!


FROM BLOOMBERG NEWS....
J&J Owes $7.76 Million in Punitives in Vaginal Mesh Case
By David Voreacos - Feb 28, 2013 12:22 PM ET

Johnson & Johnson (JNJ) must pay $7.76 million in punitive damages to a woman who previously won a $3.35 million compensatory award for injuries she blamed on the company’s vaginal-mesh device, a New Jersey jury ruled.

Jurors in Atlantic City made the award today to punish J&J, the world’s largest seller of health-care products. The verdict came in the first of 4,000 lawsuits to go to trial over J&J’s pelvic mesh, including 2,100 in New Jersey. The jury of six men and three women declined to comment on its decision.

Linda Gross, a nurse from South Dakota, and her husband Jeffrey, after a New Jersey jury ruled that Johnson & Johnson must pay $7.76 million in punitive damages to Gross who previously won a $3.35 million compensatory award for injuries she blamed on the company’s vaginal-mesh device.

Linda Gross, a nurse from South Dakota, and her husband Jeffrey, after a New Jersey jury ruled that Johnson & Johnson must pay $7.76 million in punitive damages to Gross who previously won a $3.35 million compensatory award for injuries she blamed on the company’s vaginal-mesh device. Photographer: David Voreacos/Bloomberg

Forensic economics expert Frank Tinari said J&J had assets of $121.3 billion and a net worth of $64.8 billion through Dec. 31. Advertising and marketing expenses were $20.9 billion last year, or $57 million a day, he said.

Forensic economics expert Frank Tinari said J&J had assets of $121.3 billion and a net worth of $64.8 billion through Dec. 31. Advertising and marketing expenses were $20.9 billion last year, or $57 million a day, he said. Photographer: Brent Lewin/Bloomberg

The total of $11.1 million goes to Linda Gross, a South Dakota nurse who complained of constant pain and underwent 18 operations after J&J’s Gynecare Prolift was implanted to shore up weakened pelvic muscles. On Feb. 25, the panel found that J&J and its Ethicon unit failed to warn her surgeon of the risks of the device and fraudulently misled her about the risks.

“Tell them to tell the truth,” Gross attorney Adam Slater argued to jurors on Feb. 26. “Make sure you punish them for not telling the truth. Make sure you deter and discourage.”

Ethicon will appeal the punitive verdict today as well as the Feb. 25 compensatory award, Sheri Woodruff, a company spokeswoman, said in an e-mail.

“The punitive damage award is unsupported by the evidence presented at trial,” Woodruff said. “Ethicon acted appropriately in the research, development and marketing of the Prolift.”

‘Fell Short’

J&J, based in New Brunswick, New Jersey, claimed at trial that Prolift is safe and effective and that the company gave adequate warning of any risks associated with the device. Christy Jones, a J&J attorney, said the company hadn’t acted with wanton and willful disregard to Gross, the legal standard required for punitive damages.

“I understand that you have found that we could have done a better job and that we in fact fell short,” Jones said Feb. 26. “My clients understand that. We hear you, I promise you.”

Jones said that “while I confess to you from the bottom of my heart that it hurts, and we’re disappointed in the verdict, we nonetheless appreciate what you have said and recognize and respect your verdict.”

Gross’s attorneys called a forensic economics expert, Frank Tinari, to testify about J&J’s finances. Tinari said J&J had assets of $121.3 billion and a net worth of $64.8 billion through Dec. 31. Advertising and marketing expenses were $20.9 billion last year, or $57 million a day, he said.

Company Document

Under questioning by Gross’s attorney, David Mazie, Tinari said that every 45 minutes the company spends the equivalent of the $3.35 million award to Gross on marketing and advertising.

A J&J manager of financial reporting, Mark Schneider, testified his analysis of Prolift sales from 2005 through 2012 showed the total was $128 million and profit was $5.6 million.

On cross-examination, Mazie suggested Schneider’s calculations were unreliable and underreported sales. He showed Schneider a company document saying sales in the first half of 2008 were $55 million. Schneider said he hadn’t seen it.

In his summation, Slater went through e-mails, memos and video depositions, including one of the device’s creator, Axel Arnaud. Slater said Arnaud contradicted Ethicon’s statement that Prolift posed “rare and small risks” of complications.

“I have given you 100 percent irrefutable evidence that you cannot reasonably say no to,” Slater said. “This is clear and convincing evidence. This is irrefutable.”

Jones said Ethicon tried to teach surgeons how to minimize the risk to patients, and sought through “instructions for use” to warn of the risks.

‘That’s Human’

The evidence doesn’t show “J&J or Ethicon did not care about hurting women. And that’s what the charge is,” Jones told jurors, her hands held as if in prayer. “I’m asking you, indeed, I’m begging you, to think about what was done and why.”

In his summation, Slater said, “They stood in front of you and said we’re begging you. We’re begging you. Every single day Linda Gross begs to be out of the prison that she’s in of pain and all the things that have happened to her; every damn day. That’s human. That’s real.”

Mazie said J&J is a “big giant” and jurors must send a “loud message” to punish the company for its conduct.

“It’s for each and every one of you to send a message to them that this can never, ever happen again, because life and health is at risk,” Mazie said. “You can send a message to Johnson & Johnson and Ethicon and tell them no more, no more, no more.”

The case is Gross v. Gynecare Inc., Atl-L-6966-10, Superior Court of Atlantic County, New Jersey (Atlantic City).

To contact the reporter on this story: David Voreacos in Atlantic City, New Jersey, at dvoreacos@bloomberg.net

JURY AWARDS $3.35 MILLION IN LINDA GROSS VS. ETHICON VAGINAL MESH CASE AGAINST JOHNSON & JOHNSON - FEBRUARY 26, 2013 - JOURNALISTS BEMOAN THE FATE OF J&J'S FINANCIAL PICTURE IGNORING THE DESTRUCTION TO LINDA GROSS' LIFE

SEE MY THOUGHTS BELOW ON THE CURRENT "JOURNALISM" RELATING TO THE LINDA GROSS WIN OVER J&J...THE CONCERN FOR J&J"S PROFIT BEFORE PATIENTS CULTURE OF CORRUPTION IS AWFUL!

Jury awards $3.35 million in vaginal mesh case against Johnson & Johnson


This was published on February 26, 2013 by Reuters.

A jury on Monday said Johnson & Johnson should pay a South Dakota woman $3.35 million for failing to adequately warn her doctor of the potential dangers of a vaginal mesh implant made by the company's Ethicon subsidiary, and for misrepresenting the product in brochures.

It was the first verdict among some 1,800 [there are over 2,000 in NJ alone] vaginal mesh cases pending in New Jersey against Ethicon and J&J and could have an impact on thousands of lawsuits against other manufacturers of similar products.

The lawsuit, in state Superior Court in Atlantic City, New Jersey, was brought by Linda Gross, 47, of Watertown, South Dakota, in November 2008. It alleged that the Gyncare Prolift vaginal mesh was not safe and that J&J and Ethicon were liable, among other things, for "their defective design, manufacture, warnings and instructions."

The Ethicon product, before being taken off the U.S. market last year, was used to treat pelvic organ collapse, a condition for which the plaintiff, a nurse, was treated in November 2008. (2006)

That condition occurs when tissue that holds the pelvic organs in place is weak or stretched and bulges into the vagina. There are different types of this prolapse condition, which usually occurs after menopause, childbirth or a hysterectomy. The vaginal mesh was also used by many doctors to treat a severe form of urinary incontinence, called stress incontinence. [Stress urinary incontinence in itself is not severe. It can be a debilitating condition to some women. Incontinence is not a disease. It is a symptom of a condition, weak or torn tissue. It is not life threatening. J&J identified a market segment of 13,000,000 baby boomers who would develop some form of incontinence and started promoting their trademark Prolene polypropylene hernia mesh as the “magic button” for any degree of incontinence. Once more, Stress Urinary Incontinence is not by definition “severe”.]

Gross, a nurse, filed her lawsuit after having surgery in 2006 to install a Gyncare Prolift for pelvic prolapse. She alleged the surgery led to a variety of problems, including mesh erosion, scar tissue, inflammation and "neurologic compromise to ... structures and tissue."

She said she had to seek medical treatment and had 18 operations to repair the damage caused by the mesh.

Ben Anderson, a member of the trail team for the plaintiff, called the jury verdict "a strong statement to Johnson & Johnson and Ethicon that they cannot put profits before women's safety." [J&J must be shaking in their billions of dollars of profit since the Linda Gross team of plaintiff attorneys proved neither defective design nor fraud on the part of J&J. As a bellwether trial, this one rivals the Christopher Thorpe "win" over Davol Bard for the recalled Kugel Mesh Hernia Patch. There will be many more bellwether trials unfortunately.]

The verdict, by a panel of six women and three men, followed a six-week trial before Judge Carol Higbee. After the verdict was delivered, the judge ruled that she will allow arguments on punitive damages. Those hearings are scheduled for Tuesday at 9:30 a.m.

Sheri Woodruff, a spokeswoman for Ethicon, said, "While we are always concerned when a patient experiences medical conditions like those suffered by the plaintiff, all surgeries for pelvic organ prolapse present risks of complications." [All pelvic organ prolapse surgeries do not present risks of torture or mutilation of a woman’s internal sexual organs by a defective medical device.]

She said she could not comment further.

In addition to the lawsuits against Ethicon and J&J in New Jersey, about 11,000 other claims have been filed against a variety of manufacturers of vaginal mesh, according to Florida attorney Bryan Aylstock.

Those claims have been consolidated into five cases that are pending in federal court in West Virginia, according to Aylstock, co-lead counsel in one of the West Virginia cases.

The defendants in those cases are Ethicon, C.R. Bard Inc, Boston Scientific Corp, Coloplast, and Endo Health Solutions' American Medical Systems Inc.

Last year, jurors in a state court in Bakersfield, California, said C.R. Bard was liable for $3.6 million in the first case over the vaginal mesh devices to go to trial. The panel found the plaintiff and her husband were entitled to a total of $5.5 million for her medical expenses, pain, suffering and other damages resulting from Bard's Avaulta Plus device.

Last June, J&J announced that it had stopped selling the vaginal mesh following lawsuits that allege it caused infections and bleeding. On Monday, the company said there were 4,000 lawsuits against J&J involving the vaginal mesh product pending in the United States.

Morningstar analyst Damien Conover said plaintiff attorneys generally pick a particularly strong case to argue first and that the judgment against J&J was sizable. But, he added that subsequent plaintiffs' cases coming to trial might be less forceful, and that J&J, with annual revenue approaching $70 billion, could easily withstand eventual financial hits from the litigation. [While women are catastrophically, permanently injured for the rest of their lives, J&J’s stockholders will continue to profit off their pain.]

"The size of the caseload presents a significant legal risk to J&J, although it's hard to quantify," Conover said.

Conover said J&J has taken recent charges of more than $4 billion for recalls of defective artificial hips, without badly denting the company's share price. He said charges are likely to be considerably less for the vaginal mesh litigation, "So I don't think this is a big overhang" for the company.[So J&J will be able to continue manufacturing and distributing harmful drugs and devices which have harmed hundreds and hundreds of thousands of people worldwide. Will anything stop this corporate criminal?]

J&J shares closed down 0.89 percent, or 68 cents, at $75.57 on the New York Stock Exchange.

The case is Gross v. Gynecare Inc., Superior Court of Atlantic County, New Jersey, Atl-L-6966-10.



Read more:

http://www.foxnews.com/health/2013/02/26/jury-awards-335-million-in-vaginal-mesh-case-against-johnson-johnson/