Johnson & Johnson Slammed With $344M Verdict in CA Pelvic Mesh Case
The statement of decision, issued on Thursday, is the first in which a state has obtained a judgment against pelvic mesh manufacturer Johnson & Johnson.
January 30, 2020 at 05:16 PM
4 minute read
The original version of this story was published on The Recorder
In the first verdict to come out of an attorney general's lawsuit over transvaginal mesh devices, a San Diego judge ordered Johnson & Johnson on Thursday to pay nearly $344 million to the state of California.
The 88-page statement of decision by San Diego Superior Court Judge Eddie Sturgeon found that Johnson & Johnson and its subsidiary, Ethicon Inc., misled doctors about the safety of their devices by downplaying the risks through a "combination of false statements, misleading half-truths, and omissions."
He ordered Johnson & Johnson to pay statutory penalties, with a briefing on potential injunctive relief due by Feb. 18.
In his decision, Sturgeon concluded that the "nature and seriousness of the misconduct were grave."
"J&J's deception had real consequences for real people," he wrote. "The court concludes that the nature of the deceptive marketing conduct is egregious and that penalties are warranted to vindicate the public wrong that has been done within the state of California."
California Attorney General Xavier Becerra, in a statement, called the decision groundbreaking.
"Johnson & Johnson intentionally concealed the risks of its pelvic mesh implant devices. It robbed women and their doctors of their ability to make informed decisions about whether to permanently implant the products in patients' bodies," Becerra said. "Johnson & Johnson knew the danger of its mesh products but put profits ahead of the health of millions of women."
A Johnson & Johnson representative did not respond to a request for comment.
California filed its suit in 2016, alleging Johnson & Johnson failed to inform consumers about the risks of its transvaginal mesh devices, used to treat stress urinary incontinence and pelvic organ prolapse in women. The devices have caused urinary problems and recurrent pain, particularly during sex, according to the suit. Johnson & Johnson, which sold more than 30,000 pelvic mesh products in California from 2008 to 2014, is one of several manufacturers of the devices hit by individual lawsuits that, at one time, peaked at nearly 100,000.
Many of those cases have since settled.
Last year, Washington state settled its case against Johnson & Johnson for $9.9 million on the first day of trial, while 41 other states and the District of Columbia reached a $117 million settlement in October.
In California's case, a bench trial began on July 15, with the state asking for $700 million in penalties.
In his statement of decision, the judge leaned on plaintiffs' experts in his ruling rather than on Johnson & Johnson's, some of whom he called biased and "contradicted by the company's own admissions and knowledge regarding their own products," noting that there was "substantial evidence from company documents and testimony confirming the dangerous properties of mesh."
He also emphasized the consistency and length of Johnson & Johnson's wrongdoing.
"J&J persisted in its deceptive conduct for 17 years even in the face of internal and external calls for change, amounting to hundreds of thousands of knowing, illegal statements targeted at California consumers," he wrote.
In awarding the total dollar figure, the judge calculated a specific number of Johnson & Johnson's various marketing efforts in California, such as distribution of product brochures, dinners with doctors and professional education and training events, and multiplied the total by the $2,500 per violation in penalties provided under California's Unfair Competition Law and False Advertising Law.
"J&J engaged in serious, knowing, and willful misconduct over a period of close to twenty years, and likely committed far more violations in California during the statutory period than are captured in those figures," he wrote. "The amount also represents less than 1 percent of J&J's $70.4 billion total net worth and is not unconstitutional excessive or disproportionate."
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2024 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllLitigators of the Week: After a 74-Day Trial, Shook Fends Off Claims From Artist’s Heirs Against UMB Bank
An ‘Indiana Jones Moment’: Mayer Brown’s John Nadolenco and Kelly Kramer on the 10-Year Legal Saga of the Bahia Emerald
‘It's Your Funeral’: Avoiding Doing Damage to Your Client’s Case With Uncivil Behavior
Trending Stories
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250