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
Thursday, February 28, 2013
Tuesday, February 26, 2013
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/
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/
Saturday, February 23, 2013
J&J DISCLOSES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE GOVERNMENT INVESTIGATIONS OF METAL ON METAL HIP IMPLANTS AND SYNTHETIC SURGICAL MESH FOR HERNIA AND UROGYNECOLOGIC REPAIRS
Potential criminal activities of Johnson & Johnson are being reported by Bloomberg relating to synthetic surgical mesh and metal hip implants. Sadly, this will not bring back the lives of hundreds of thousands who are already harmed.
Myself and other patient advocates have been feeding information to the Department of Justice (DOJ) and the Office of Criminal Investigation (OCI) of the U.S. Food and Drug Adminsitration (FDA) and anyone else who would listen for several years now. They can't get the horse back in the barn now!!
Praise God the truth is going to be told. Please send this to everyone you know. You may just save a life from being ruined! Thank you for getting the news out there!
We have to protect each other because it is obvious some Pharmaceutical Companies have defrauded the FDA, Doctors, Hospitals and the American Public!
God bless America!! Yours truly, Lana C. Keeton
J&J Discloses Government Investigations of Hip (Implants), (Synthetic Surgical) Mesh
By David Voreacos - Feb 22, 2013 8:35 AM ET
http://www.nj.com/business/index.ssf/2013/02/johnson_johnson_discloses_gove.html
(CUT & PASTE FROM BLOOMBERG BELOW)
"Johnson & Johnson disclosed government probes into two of its troubled products today."
"Johnson & Johnson, the world’s largest seller of health-care products, disclosed separate government investigations into possible false claims related to its hip devices and the marketing of its surgical mesh.
The U.S. Justice Department requested documents relating to whether J&J’s DePuy unit may have submitted false claims to federal health-care programs over its ASR XL hip devices, which were recalled in August 2010, the company said today in a regulatory filing. California is leading a multistate investigation into the marketing of surgical mesh, J&J said.
J&J, based in New Brunswick, New Jersey, said it’s “fully cooperating” with the Justice Department’s civil division and the U.S. Attorney’s Office in Massachusetts after getting an informal request in August about the marketing and use of the hips.
“The government is investigating whether any person or entity submitted or caused to be submitted false claims or false statements affecting federal health-care programs in connection with the marketing and use of the ASR XL hip device,” according to the filing. “The government has since made additional informal requests for the production of documents.”
10,000 ASR Metal on Metal Hip Implant Lawsuits
More than 10,000 lawsuits are pending in the U.S. over the ASR hips, which claim J&J defectively designed the device and failed to warn of possible problems. J&J recalled 93,000 worldwide after saying 12 percent failed in the U.K. The first lawsuit to go to trial is under way in state court in Los Angeles.
California’s attorney general contacted J&J in October regarding a probe of the marketing of mesh products for hernia and urogynecological purposes, J&J said. That probe involves 42 states, the company said.
J&J faces at least 1,800 lawsuits over its Gynecare Prolift vaginal mesh implant used to shore up pelvic muscles. The first of those cases has gone to trial in state court in Atlantic City, New Jersey, where a jury will enter its fourth day of deliberations today.
In August, J&J stopped selling four mesh devices in the U.S., including Prolift. The company said in June that it would end sales worldwide because of the products’ lack of commercial viability, and not based on their safety and effectiveness.
The cases are Kransky v. DePuy, BC456086, California Superior Court, Los Angeles County (Los Angeles); and Gross v. Gynecare Inc., Atl-L-6966-10, Superior Court of Atlantic County, New Jersey (Atlantic City)."
Friday, February 22, 2013
LINDA GROSS VS. ETHICON INC. NEW JERSEY TRANSVAGINAL MESH TRIAL: WAS THIS A PRODUCT LIABILITY LAWSUIT?
I personally believe Linda Gross did not have adequate representation. Why, you ask?
The trial ended with testimony by Dr. Kaveler discussing surgical procedure. This is a product liability lawsuit. Why did Mazie Katz allow the very last testimony heard by the jury to be about surgical procedure?
A few simple rebuttals would have helped. Like asking the jury, "If you had a splinter in your finger, what would you do? Would you get pain management for a splinter? No. Would you get physical therapy for a splinter? No."
It is such a simple example of how Linda Gross is suffering. She feels like she has hundreds of splinters in her pelvis. No one in their right mind would leave a splinter in their finger, get pain management, physical therapy or go to a psychiatrist. You would GET IT OUT!
Yet the jury is left with the thought, "Why did she not just leave the mesh implanted in her pelvis? Why did she insist the mesh be removed?" by her own attorneys who allowed the testimony to rely heavily on testimony about surgical procedures, how many were there, who recommended them, who did them, did the doctor recommend them or did Linda Gross ask for them. WHAT?
Or did Mazie Katz present the simple thought....surgically removing mesh from your body is like cutting gum out of your hair. No I did not hear that one either. Maybe then the jury would have better understood the pain and agony of each and every mesh removal surgery Linda Gross has endured.
Believe me, if you had mesh in your pelvis, as I have for over 11 years, you will undergo whatever surgery it takes to get the mesh out. I suffer, certainly not to the extent Linda Gross does, and I KNOW how she feels about getting it out. Mesh pain is pure torture.
MY BIG QUESTION:
Where was the testimony about the inherent defects of the Prolift Gynemesh implanted in Linda Gross?
Did her attorneys Mazie, Katz, Slater & Freeman discredit the synthetic surgical mesh product itself during the trial?
I DON'T THINK SO.
What I saw:
1) attack of the ethics of Ethicon/Johnson & Johnson - sure it showed the seeming fraud by Ethicon in not getting the product cleared by the FDA before actually selling the Prolift product
2) failure to warn the doctor
3) fraud and misrepresentation
What I did not see: Evidence presented by Mazie, Katz of the inherent defects of the physical and chemical properties of Prolift Gynemesh polymer itself, that it degrades, decomposes and moves within the body at will.
Oh, there was some discussion of the pore size, the strain placed on Prolift in the pelvis and the placement of the Gynemesh in the pelvis when it had historically been placed for hernia repair in the abdomen.
The case put on by Mazie, Katz, Slater & Freeman gives Gynecare, Ethicon, Johnson & Johnson free reign to continue to sell their Gynemesh product by simply changing their "Instructions for Use" (IFU) and re-submitting them to the FDA/CDRH for clearance......WHICH THEY HAVE ALREADY DONE.
Ethicon no longer sells Prolift, TVT Secur, Prolift M, etc. They have been removed from the market.
THIS IN NO WAY MEANS ETHICON WILL NOT CONTINUE TO HARM THOUSANDS AND THOUSANDS OF OTHER WOMEN BY RE-PACKAGING AND RE-MARKETING THE VERY SAME DEFECTIVE SYNTHETIC SURGICAL MESH...GYNEMESH!
So there are lots of cheers and support of Mazie, Katz and all the other law firms involved in the pelvic mesh lawsuits in New Jersey.
A word of caution: this is "product liability prosecution light". The company lives to "die another day".
Last but not least. One has to wonder why a law firm such as Mazie, Katz, Slater & Freeman, a relatively small law firm, took on prosecution of an industry giant, a multi-billion dollar pharmaceutical company that annually makes BILLIONS of dollars in profit when they had never before been involved in a class action or mass tort. Belongs in the DMS (doesn't make sense) file to me.
Or maybe not when you realize punitive damages are capped at 5 times compensatory damages or $350,000.00, whichever is greater, in the state of New Jersey protecting Gynecare/Ethicon/Johnson & Johnson from potentially millions and millions more dollars of liability than if it were tried in another state.
And Mazie Katz only had 85 cases when they originally filed their first cases after years of running their "mesh complications" website ad all over the internet AND anywhere you see my name?
Or that they use "truth in medicine" as a tag for their website.
Advertise the hell out of your lawsuit against J&J, but take as few cases as possible.
Seriously limits the overall monetary liability of J&J by reducing the number of cases and having a cap on punitive damages. Sweet deal for J&J but why Mazie, Katz involvment?
Been thinking about this for over 4 years since October 2008 when Matthew Mendelshon contacted me from Mazie Katz and set up a conference call with Adam Slater to potentially hire me as a legal consultant.
I know now hiring me was not the intent of the conversation. Adam Slater ask me "Are there a lot of these injuries out there?" I answered a resounding "Yes".
THE VERY NEXT DAY their "mesh complications" website went online and everywhere you see my name, there's a Mazie Katz ad.
Now think about the trial testimony. 2008 is when the FDA/CDRH finally knew the Prolift was being marketed without clearance. Ethicon knew the cat was out of the bag. Coincidence Mazie Katz contacted me in the fall of 2008? Maybe.
But knowing there are hundreds of thousands of pelvic organ prolapse mesh kits implanted in women every single year, how is it Mazie Katz wound up with only 85 cases after years of their online advertising?
Like I said, belongs in the DMS (doesn't make sense) file. I report, you decide.
The trial ended with testimony by Dr. Kaveler discussing surgical procedure. This is a product liability lawsuit. Why did Mazie Katz allow the very last testimony heard by the jury to be about surgical procedure?
A few simple rebuttals would have helped. Like asking the jury, "If you had a splinter in your finger, what would you do? Would you get pain management for a splinter? No. Would you get physical therapy for a splinter? No."
It is such a simple example of how Linda Gross is suffering. She feels like she has hundreds of splinters in her pelvis. No one in their right mind would leave a splinter in their finger, get pain management, physical therapy or go to a psychiatrist. You would GET IT OUT!
Yet the jury is left with the thought, "Why did she not just leave the mesh implanted in her pelvis? Why did she insist the mesh be removed?" by her own attorneys who allowed the testimony to rely heavily on testimony about surgical procedures, how many were there, who recommended them, who did them, did the doctor recommend them or did Linda Gross ask for them. WHAT?
Or did Mazie Katz present the simple thought....surgically removing mesh from your body is like cutting gum out of your hair. No I did not hear that one either. Maybe then the jury would have better understood the pain and agony of each and every mesh removal surgery Linda Gross has endured.
Believe me, if you had mesh in your pelvis, as I have for over 11 years, you will undergo whatever surgery it takes to get the mesh out. I suffer, certainly not to the extent Linda Gross does, and I KNOW how she feels about getting it out. Mesh pain is pure torture.
MY BIG QUESTION:
Where was the testimony about the inherent defects of the Prolift Gynemesh implanted in Linda Gross?
Did her attorneys Mazie, Katz, Slater & Freeman discredit the synthetic surgical mesh product itself during the trial?
I DON'T THINK SO.
What I saw:
1) attack of the ethics of Ethicon/Johnson & Johnson - sure it showed the seeming fraud by Ethicon in not getting the product cleared by the FDA before actually selling the Prolift product
2) failure to warn the doctor
3) fraud and misrepresentation
What I did not see: Evidence presented by Mazie, Katz of the inherent defects of the physical and chemical properties of Prolift Gynemesh polymer itself, that it degrades, decomposes and moves within the body at will.
Oh, there was some discussion of the pore size, the strain placed on Prolift in the pelvis and the placement of the Gynemesh in the pelvis when it had historically been placed for hernia repair in the abdomen.
The case put on by Mazie, Katz, Slater & Freeman gives Gynecare, Ethicon, Johnson & Johnson free reign to continue to sell their Gynemesh product by simply changing their "Instructions for Use" (IFU) and re-submitting them to the FDA/CDRH for clearance......WHICH THEY HAVE ALREADY DONE.
Ethicon no longer sells Prolift, TVT Secur, Prolift M, etc. They have been removed from the market.
THIS IN NO WAY MEANS ETHICON WILL NOT CONTINUE TO HARM THOUSANDS AND THOUSANDS OF OTHER WOMEN BY RE-PACKAGING AND RE-MARKETING THE VERY SAME DEFECTIVE SYNTHETIC SURGICAL MESH...GYNEMESH!
So there are lots of cheers and support of Mazie, Katz and all the other law firms involved in the pelvic mesh lawsuits in New Jersey.
A word of caution: this is "product liability prosecution light". The company lives to "die another day".
Last but not least. One has to wonder why a law firm such as Mazie, Katz, Slater & Freeman, a relatively small law firm, took on prosecution of an industry giant, a multi-billion dollar pharmaceutical company that annually makes BILLIONS of dollars in profit when they had never before been involved in a class action or mass tort. Belongs in the DMS (doesn't make sense) file to me.
Or maybe not when you realize punitive damages are capped at 5 times compensatory damages or $350,000.00, whichever is greater, in the state of New Jersey protecting Gynecare/Ethicon/Johnson & Johnson from potentially millions and millions more dollars of liability than if it were tried in another state.
And Mazie Katz only had 85 cases when they originally filed their first cases after years of running their "mesh complications" website ad all over the internet AND anywhere you see my name?
Or that they use "truth in medicine" as a tag for their website.
Advertise the hell out of your lawsuit against J&J, but take as few cases as possible.
Seriously limits the overall monetary liability of J&J by reducing the number of cases and having a cap on punitive damages. Sweet deal for J&J but why Mazie, Katz involvment?
Been thinking about this for over 4 years since October 2008 when Matthew Mendelshon contacted me from Mazie Katz and set up a conference call with Adam Slater to potentially hire me as a legal consultant.
I know now hiring me was not the intent of the conversation. Adam Slater ask me "Are there a lot of these injuries out there?" I answered a resounding "Yes".
THE VERY NEXT DAY their "mesh complications" website went online and everywhere you see my name, there's a Mazie Katz ad.
Now think about the trial testimony. 2008 is when the FDA/CDRH finally knew the Prolift was being marketed without clearance. Ethicon knew the cat was out of the bag. Coincidence Mazie Katz contacted me in the fall of 2008? Maybe.
But knowing there are hundreds of thousands of pelvic organ prolapse mesh kits implanted in women every single year, how is it Mazie Katz wound up with only 85 cases after years of their online advertising?
Like I said, belongs in the DMS (doesn't make sense) file. I report, you decide.
Tuesday, February 12, 2013
LINDA GROSS VS. ETHICON INC NEW JERSEY TRANSVAGINAL MESH TRIAL
JOHNSON & JOHNSON,
ETHICON INC and
GYNECARE...
and their EXTREMELY DISGUSTING HUMANS:
Christy Jones, the despicable attorney
Dr. Miles Murphy and Dr. Vincent Lucente, the despicable duo
Dr. James Raders and Dr. Ralph Zipper, another despicable duo
Dr. Charlotte Owens, a traitor to women
Dr. Elizabeth Kaveler, another traitor to women
As they bow down before their "Surgical Mesh God, the mighty Prolift" a filthy piece of petroleum waste byproduct that tortures humans they have deceived with their tales of salvation from pelvic organ prolapse, they are a disgrace to the human race.
I read about their lies on the witness stand as they testify against an innocent trusting woman, Linda Gross, and the following verse comes to mind.
Revelation 21:8 King James Version (KJV)
8 But the fearful, and unbelieving, and the abominable, and murderers, and whoremongers, and sorcerers, and idolaters, and all liars, shall have their part in the lake which burneth with fire and brimstone: which is the second death.
I am in disbelief that such a culture of lies, corruption and deceit includes so many "humans".
How is it possible there are so many of them in one company who conspire together knowing they will cause so much harm to other people? Never do they say there will be NO HARM, Only how low the percentage of people they KNOW THEY WILL HARM!
THIS IS CRIMINAL@! And they have no qualms whatsoever as they, one by one, lie and lie and lie!
GOD WILL BE THEIR JUDGE!
ETHICON INC and
GYNECARE...
and their EXTREMELY DISGUSTING HUMANS:
Christy Jones, the despicable attorney
Dr. Miles Murphy and Dr. Vincent Lucente, the despicable duo
Dr. James Raders and Dr. Ralph Zipper, another despicable duo
Dr. Charlotte Owens, a traitor to women
Dr. Elizabeth Kaveler, another traitor to women
As they bow down before their "Surgical Mesh God, the mighty Prolift" a filthy piece of petroleum waste byproduct that tortures humans they have deceived with their tales of salvation from pelvic organ prolapse, they are a disgrace to the human race.
I read about their lies on the witness stand as they testify against an innocent trusting woman, Linda Gross, and the following verse comes to mind.
Revelation 21:8 King James Version (KJV)
8 But the fearful, and unbelieving, and the abominable, and murderers, and whoremongers, and sorcerers, and idolaters, and all liars, shall have their part in the lake which burneth with fire and brimstone: which is the second death.
I am in disbelief that such a culture of lies, corruption and deceit includes so many "humans".
How is it possible there are so many of them in one company who conspire together knowing they will cause so much harm to other people? Never do they say there will be NO HARM, Only how low the percentage of people they KNOW THEY WILL HARM!
THIS IS CRIMINAL@! And they have no qualms whatsoever as they, one by one, lie and lie and lie!
GOD WILL BE THEIR JUDGE!
Friday, February 1, 2013
TRANSVAGINAL or HERNIA MESH ATTORNEY NOT REPRESENTING YOU PROPERLY, FILE A GRIEVANCE WITH THE STATE BAR ASSOCIATION!
Hello Fellow Mesh Injured Patients,
Not getting proper representation by your transvaginal or hernia mesh attorney? No contact for months, not updates? File a griievance with the State Bar in your state.
If you are having big issues with representation by your attorney, there are ways to get help. Every state has a professional code of conduct for lawyers they have to follow. If they don't, the State Bar Association has the power to take away their ability to practice law by taking away their bar card.
Call information or look it up online to get the phone number of your State Bar Association. Call them and ask them to mail you the form to file your grievance.
Be sure to find and read the professional code of conduct before filing the grievance to be sure you actually have a grievance.
It is a very effective way to make sure your rights are not being violated.
Best, Lana
Not getting proper representation by your transvaginal or hernia mesh attorney? No contact for months, not updates? File a griievance with the State Bar in your state.
If you are having big issues with representation by your attorney, there are ways to get help. Every state has a professional code of conduct for lawyers they have to follow. If they don't, the State Bar Association has the power to take away their ability to practice law by taking away their bar card.
Call information or look it up online to get the phone number of your State Bar Association. Call them and ask them to mail you the form to file your grievance.
Be sure to find and read the professional code of conduct before filing the grievance to be sure you actually have a grievance.
It is a very effective way to make sure your rights are not being violated.
Best, Lana
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
