Johnson & Johnson Hit With $35M Verdict in Pelvic Mesh Case
A federal jury in northern Indiana hit Johnson & Johnson with a $35 million verdict in a lawsuit over an "unreasonably dangerous" pelvic mesh implant, a team of lawyers has announced.
March 09, 2018 at 05:45 PM
3 minute read
A federal jury in northern Indiana hit Johnson & Johnson with a $35 million verdict in a lawsuit over an “unreasonably dangerous” pelvic mesh implant, a team of lawyers has announced.
After two weeks of trial, the nine-person jury in U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Indiana on Friday rendered its verdict against J&J and its subsidiary, Ethicon, for the manufacture, marketing and recruitment of physicians to install the Prolift mesh device intended for repairing prolapsed pelvic organs.
In a statement released Friday, the lead attorney for plaintiffs Barbara and Anton Kaiser, Thomas O. Plouff of Costello McMahon Burke & Murphy, said, ”Ethicon defended an indefensible product and the jury stood up for Barb Kaiser. They were asked to send a message to Ethicon to deter future wrongdoing and they did, a company that sold a medical device without doing any clinical testing and caused thousands of women to suffer painful complications from mesh in their pelvic area.”
Plouff was aided in the case by Jeff Kuntz of Wagstaff & Cartmell in Kansas City, Missouri, and Edward Walllace of Wexler Wallace in Chicago.
The verdict breaks down to $10 million for compensatory damages and $25 million for punitive damages.
The lawsuit claimed Ethicon used polypropylene, a material that is incompatible with human flesh, which causes the body's immune system to attack the device and degrade it, leading to “severe adverse reactions.”
The FDA clearance process for the marketing of the drug did not require Ethicon to prove the safety or efficacy of its mesh, the complaint said, and therefore the safety of the mesh was never reviewed by the government.
“At all times relevant to this action, defendants intentionally, recklessly and/or negligently concealed, suppressed, omitted, and misrepresented the risks, dangers, defects, and disadvantages of the pelvic mesh products and advertised, promoted, marketed, sold and distributed the pelvic mesh products as a safe medical device when, in fact, defendants knew that the pelvic mesh products were not safe for their intended purposes and that the pelvic mesh products would cause, and did cause, serious medical problems, and in some patients, catastrophic and permanent injuries,” the complaint said.
The defendants claimed in their answer to the complaint that the companies were not at fault for the alleged injuries.
Additionally, court papers said, “At all relevant times, the warnings and instructions accompanying the products at issue were governed by and conformed with applicable federal statutes, rules and regulations; therefore, warnings and instructions relating to the products were presumptively adequate.”
J&J spokeswoman Mindy Tinsley said J&J and Ethicon continue to stand by their product.
“Ethicon intends to appeal this verdict as we believe it contradicts the evidence that the product was properly designed and that the company appropriately informed surgeons of pertinent complications,” she said in an email.
“Pelvic organ prolapse is a serious and debilitating condition with limited treatment options,” she continued. “Scientists from around the world who have conducted and reviewed independent research on pelvic mesh agree it is an important treatment option for some women. All surgeries to treat pelvic organ prolapse have risks. While we empathize with those who have experienced complications, many women with pelvic mesh see an improvement in their day-to-day lives.”
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
© 2025 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 AllSEC Official Hints at More Restraint With Industry Bars, Less With Wells Meetings
4 minute readSidley Adds Ex-DOJ Criminal Division Deputy Leader, Paul Hastings Adds REIT Partner, in Latest DC Hiring
3 minute readTrending Stories
- 1Two Wilkinson Stekloff Associates Among Victims of DC Plane Crash
- 2Two More Victims Alleged in New Sean Combs Sex Trafficking Indictment
- 3Jackson Lewis Leaders Discuss Firm's Innovation Efforts, From Prompt-a-Thons to Gen AI Pilots
- 4Trump's DOJ Files Lawsuit Seeking to Block $14B Tech Merger
- 5'No Retributive Actions,' Kash Patel Pledges if Confirmed to FBI
Who Got The Work
J. Brugh Lower of Gibbons has entered an appearance for industrial equipment supplier Devco Corporation in a pending trademark infringement lawsuit. The suit, accusing the defendant of selling knock-off Graco products, was filed Dec. 18 in New Jersey District Court by Rivkin Radler on behalf of Graco Inc. and Graco Minnesota. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Zahid N. Quraishi, is 3:24-cv-11294, Graco Inc. et al v. Devco Corporation.
Who Got The Work
Rebecca Maller-Stein and Kent A. Yalowitz of Arnold & Porter Kaye Scholer have entered their appearances for Hanaco Venture Capital and its executives, Lior Prosor and David Frankel, in a pending securities lawsuit. The action, filed on Dec. 24 in New York Southern District Court by Zell, Aron & Co. on behalf of Goldeneye Advisors, accuses the defendants of negligently and fraudulently managing the plaintiff's $1 million investment. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Vernon S. Broderick, is 1:24-cv-09918, Goldeneye Advisors, LLC v. Hanaco Venture Capital, Ltd. et al.
Who Got The Work
Attorneys from A&O Shearman has stepped in as defense counsel for Toronto-Dominion Bank and other defendants in a pending securities class action. The suit, filed Dec. 11 in New York Southern District Court by Bleichmar Fonti & Auld, accuses the defendants of concealing the bank's 'pervasive' deficiencies in regards to its compliance with the Bank Secrecy Act and the quality of its anti-money laundering controls. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Arun Subramanian, is 1:24-cv-09445, Gonzalez v. The Toronto-Dominion Bank et al.
Who Got The Work
Crown Castle International, a Pennsylvania company providing shared communications infrastructure, has turned to Luke D. Wolf of Gordon Rees Scully Mansukhani to fend off a pending breach-of-contract lawsuit. The court action, filed Nov. 25 in Michigan Eastern District Court by Hooper Hathaway PC on behalf of The Town Residences LLC, accuses Crown Castle of failing to transfer approximately $30,000 in utility payments from T-Mobile in breach of a roof-top lease and assignment agreement. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Susan K. Declercq, is 2:24-cv-13131, The Town Residences LLC v. T-Mobile US, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Wilfred P. Coronato and Daniel M. Schwartz of McCarter & English have stepped in as defense counsel to Electrolux Home Products Inc. in a pending product liability lawsuit. The court action, filed Nov. 26 in New York Eastern District Court by Poulos Lopiccolo PC and Nagel Rice LLP on behalf of David Stern, alleges that the defendant's refrigerators’ drawers and shelving repeatedly break and fall apart within months after purchase. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Joan M. Azrack, is 2:24-cv-08204, Stern v. Electrolux Home Products, Inc.
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