Ready to Pop, page-9

I realize that different regulations and jurisdictions apply to these cases in the US compare to Aus, but from my reading Johnson & Johnson and Ethicon are losing or settling the vast  majority of pelvic floor mesh cases worldwide. This bodes well for the chances of success in Shine's case. In fact I recall reading an article stating that J&J have been having quite a bad run in the last few years in that they are spending a fortune defending various cases but winning few, and pressure is mounting in some quarters to settle rather than contest many such cases.



http://www.prnewswire.com/news-rele...bernstein-liebhard-llp-reports-300500365.html


"NEW YORK, Aug. 7, 2017 /PRNewswire/ -- A Pennsylvania jury is now hearing evidence in the state's sixth trial involving allegedly defective transvaginal mesh devices marketed by Johnson & Johnson and its Ethicon, Inc. subsidiary. According to court documents pending in the Philadelphia Court of Common Pleas, this latest case was filed on behalf of a woman who claims that two of the companies' allegedly defective implants caused her to suffer painful and permanent complications, including damage to her urethra that resulted in incontinence. (In Re: Pelvic Mesh Litigation, Case No. 140200829)

"Our Firm is representing hundreds of women who allegedly experienced similar problems due to pelvic mesh devices manufactured by Ethicon and other companies. We will monitor this trial closely, as the verdict could provide clues as to how other juries will rule in similar transvaginal mesh lawsuits," says Sandy A. Liebhard, a partner at Bernstein Liebhard LLP, a nationwide law firm representing victims of defective drugs and medical devices. The Firm continues to evaluate potential legal claims on behalf of women who allegedly developed life-changing complications following implantation of transvaginal mesh.
Ethicon Transvaginal Mesh Litigation
Johnson & Johnson and Ethicon have been named defendants in more than 55,000 transvaginal mesh lawsuits pending nationwide. Women pursuing these claims say they experienced a wide range of painful complications, including the erosion of mesh into the vaginal wall, adhesions and scarring, chronic infections, permanent pain, and incontinence, due to the allegedly faulty implants. They further allege that Ethicon and Johnson & Johnson were aware of these defects, but failed to provide patients and doctors with appropriate warning regarding these risks.
So far, Johnson & Johnson and Ethicon have won only one transvaginal mesh trial in Pennsylvania. The first to involve the companies' devices concluded in December 2015, with a $12.5 million verdict for the plaintiffs. In February 2016, a second Pennsylvania jury awarded $13.6 million to another plaintiff, including $10 million in punitive damage. A third case concluded this past April, when Johnson & Johnson and Ethicon were ordered to pay a $20 million judgment, including $17.5 million in punitive damages.
The defendants' sole victory came in June.  However, that win was placed in jeopardy last month, when the Court granted the plaintiff's post-trial motion for a new damages hearing.
Transvaginal mesh devices are indicated to treat women who suffer from pelvic organ prolapse and stress urinary incontinence. In 2008, the U.S. Food & Drug Administration (FDA) warned that such devices had been associated with at least 1,000 reports of serious injuries and complications over a three-year period. In July 2011, the agency reported that complications related to transvaginal prolapse repair had tripled since the release of its previous warning. Among other things, the FDA reversed its stance that such injuries were rare.
In 2016, the FDA finalized regulations that reclassified pelvic mesh indicated for transvaginal prolapse repair as Class III (high risk) medical devices. The new rules also made transvaginal mesh ineligible for the agency's 510(k) clearance program, which had previously allowed such products to come to market without first undergoing human clinical trial"