Vaginal Mesh Lawyers Alert Women to $7.76 Million Punitive Damage Award in J&J Case

The attorneys at Morgan & Morgan are pleased to announce that a New Jersey jury has awarded $7.76 million in punitive damages in the first of 1,800 vaginal mesh lawsuits pending against Johnson & Johnson in New Jersey Superior Court to reach a verdict. The firm continues to offer free consultations to women who experienced complications after undergoing vaginal mesh surgery in the repair of pelvic organ prolapse (POP) or stress urinary incontinence (SUI).

  • Share on TwitterShare on FacebookShare on Google+Share on LinkedInEmail a friend
This award sends a strong message to other vaginal mesh manufacturers and I expect it to have a significant impact on future cases.

Tampa, FL (PRWEB) March 08, 2013

Morgan and Morgan is alerting vaginal mesh recipients that, on Feb. 28, a New Jersey jury ruled that Johnson & Johnson must pay $7.76 million in punitive damages to a South Dakota woman who allegedly suffered serious injuries as a result of the company’s Gynecare Prolift vaginal mesh. The punitive damage award brings the plaintiff’s total recovery to $11.1 million.

As litigation surrounding vaginal mesh implants moves forward, the firm continues to offer free consultations to women who experienced complications after undergoing vaginal mesh surgery in the repair of pelvic organ prolapse (POP) or stress urinary incontinence (SUI).

According to a Feb. 28 Bloomberg article, attorneys for the plaintiff argued that Johnson & Johnson was willful and reckless in failing to properly warn that the Prolift could cause serious complications in its recipients. In awarding punitive damages, the jury found that the company deliberately misled physicians and patients about the safety of the product.

“This award sends a strong message to other vaginal mesh manufacturers and I expect it to have a significant impact on future cases,” said Michael Goetz, head of Morgan & Morgan’s mass tort section. “The sole purpose of this type of award is to punish the defendant and deter others from engaging in similar conduct.”

In her testimony, the plaintiff claimed that she selected the Prolift mesh based on a brochure which touted the device as “revolutionary” and “minimally invasive.” The brochure also claimed that complications associated with the vaginal mesh were “rare”; however, according to a 2011 FDA safety communication, complications associated with surgical mesh products for the transvaginal repair of pelvic organ prolapse are not rare. According to court documents, the plaintiff alleged that she suffered from urinary problems and nerve pain – complications which rendered her unable to continue working as a nurse.

The Prolift, which is manufactured by Johnson & Johnson’s Ethicon unit, was introduced in March 2005; however, the FDA said that it only learned of the product in 2007 when the company sought approval for a similar device, according to a March 21 Bloomberg article.*** The FDA disagreed with Johnson & Johnson’s claims that it could market the device without approval because it was substantially similar to an already-approved product, finding that the mesh was distributed without appropriate clearance for three years, Bloomberg reports.

The attorneys at Morgan & Morgan continue to offer free consultations to women who have undergone surgery with a vaginal mesh product. For more information on the vaginal mesh litigation and to receive a free online case review, please visit http://www.forthepeople.com/vaginal-mesh-lawsuits--11-3179.html today.

About Morgan & Morgan

Morgan & Morgan is one of the largest exclusively plaintiffs’ law firms in the country with 15 offices throughout Florida, Georgia, Mississippi, Tennessee, and New York. The firm handles cases nationally involving personal injury, medical malpractice, consumer class action, and securities fraud, as well as complex litigation against drug and medical device manufacturers. Visit Morgan & Morgan online at http://www.forthepeople.com/ for a free case evaluation and information about your legal rights.

*Gross v. Gynecare Inc., case number Atl-L-6966-10, in the Superior Court of New Jersey, Atlantic County
**in.reuters.com/article/2013/02/25/us-jj-vaginalmesh-idINBRE91O0WI20130225
***bloomberg.com/news/2012-03-21/j-j-sold-vaginal-mesh-implant-without-u-s-regulatory-approval.html
http://www.fda.gov/MedicalDevices/Safety/AlertsandNotices/ucm262435.htm


Contact