NJ Appeals Court Affirms $11.1 Million Judgment in Pelvic Mesh Case

Share Article

Mazie Slater Katz & Freeman, LLC Announces That a New Jersey Appeals Court Affirmed an $11.1 Million Judgment for Linda and Jeff Gross Against Johnson & Johnson in First Prolift Pelvic Mesh Trial

News Image

New Jersey law firm Mazie Slater Katz & Freeman announces that on March 29, 2016, the New Jersey Appellate Division issued an Opinion affirming the February, 2013 jury verdict in favor of South Dakota residents Linda and Jeff Gross, against Johnson & Johnson and its wholly owned subsidiary Ethicon. The case is titled Linda Gross and Jeffrey Gross v. Gynecare, Ethicon, and Johnson & Johnson, A-0011-14T2, and the decision was issued on March 29, 2016.

The decision discusses the verdict, returned after a two month trial, found J & J and Ethicon failed to adequately warn physicians, and fraudulently deceived Linda Gross, about the risks and complications caused by Ethicon’s Prolift Pelvic Floor Repair System, and awarded punitive damages. The jury awarded $3.35 Million in compensatory damages, for pain and suffering, medical costs, and lost income, and $7.76 Million in punitive damages.

Adam Slater, who was lead trial counsel for the plaintiffs, and argued the appeal, commented on the decision. “First and foremost, this is an important day for Linda and Jeff Gross, who have endured almost ten years of devastation to their day to day quality of life, and uprooted themselves from their home and their lives to go to trial and stand up against these enormous corporations in New Jersey for two months. The verdict and this decision is a testament to their toughness and sense of justice. The Appellate Division decision presents in fine detail the events that led to this verdict, and the unimaginable injuries suffered by Linda as a result of the Prolift mesh implanted in her pelvis.”

The Appellate Division panel of three Judges ruled in a unanimous decision that the verdict was supported by the evidence, and found that the jury was correctly instructed by the trial judge. The Gross’s attorney, Adam Slater, commented on the decision: “Among the findings in the decision, the appeals court found that the jury was correctly instructed that it could consider what Mrs. Gross would have done if given accurate warnings and information. The Court rejected the argument by J & J and Ethicon that the patient’s decision was not relevant to the jury’s finding of whether proper warnings would have led Mrs. Gross to undergo a different and safer alternative. And that makes perfect sense, because a patient has to consent to surgery, the doctor or the manufacturer do not make the choice for the patient.”

Mr. Slater, who is co-liaison counsel for the more than 9000 pelvic mesh cases filed in New Jersey state court against Johnson & Johnson, Ethicon, Bard, American Medical Systems, Boston Scientific, Coloplast, and Caldera, observed: “The importance of this decision goes beyond this case. The decision provides a carefully reasoned roadmap of the relevant evidence and the law, and this will be very valuable to the thousands of other women who have cases in line for trial in New Jersey, where we have over 8000 cases, and around the country. “

For more information, please contact Adam M. Slater, Mazie Slater Katz & Freeman, 103 Eisenhower Parkway, Roseland, New Jersey, 07068; 973-228-9898; Aslater(at)mskf(dot)net.

Share article on social media or email:

View article via:

Pdf Print

Contact Author

Adam M. Slater, Esq.

Tracey Coba
Visit website