$13.5M Pelvic Mesh Verdict Affirmed
A unanimous panel affirmed the multimillion-dollar verdict in Carlino v. Ethicon, which a jury awarded in February 2016.
April 15, 2019 at 10:00 AM
3 minute read
The original version of this story was published on The Legal Intelligencer
A Pennsylvania court has rejected a Johnson & Johnson subsidiary's efforts to overturn a $13.5 million verdict over injuries a Philadelphia jury determined were caused by a pelvic mesh device implanted during surgery.
A unanimous three-judge Superior Court panel on April 11 affirmed the multimillion-dollar verdict in Carlino v. Ethicon, which a jury awarded in February 2016. The case was the second pelvic mesh trial in Philadelphia state court, and ended with a verdict of $3.5 million in compensatory damages and $10 million in punitive damages.
J&J subsidiary Ethicon had raised several issues to the appellate court in an effort to overturn the verdict, including contending that certain evidence and testimony should have been allowed in at trial and that the action should have been barred by the statute of limitations, but the court rejected all of those arguments.
Regarding the statute of limitations argument, Judge Victor Stabile, who wrote the majority's 53-page opinion, said Ethicon made a “spirited argument,” since the plaintiff's history of pain, advice by physicians and corrective surgery all indicated she should have been aware of the link between the problematic mesh and her injuries more than two years before she filed her suit. But, he also noted the plaintiff presented conflicting evidence on this issue, and determined that the trial court was correct to allow the jury to consider the case.
“Certain trial testimony indicates that Ms. Carlino's physicians identified the TVT as the cause of Ms. Carlino's problems in 2007 and 2010, but other medical records suggest that these physicians told her that her problems were risks of the surgery,” Stabile said.
Ethicon also challenged whether courts in Pennsylvania had jurisdiction to hear the claims, since Ethicon is based in New Jersey and the plaintiff, Sharon Carlino, is not a Pennsylvania resident.
Although the panel in Carlino noted recent Superior Court precedent rejecting that argument, the state Supreme Court is set to have the ultimate say on the jurisdiction question after it agreed to take up Ethicon's appeal on the issue earlier this week.
Carlino's case is one of nearly 90 cases that are pending in Philadelphia's Complex Litigation Center, all of which contend that Ethicon failed to adequately warn about the risks of implanting pelvic mesh.
In an emailed statement April 12, Carlino's attorney, Shanin Specter of Kline & Specter, who is also a lead attorney in the pelvic mesh litigation, said his client is “gratified by the Superior Court's affirmance of her verdict.”
“This brave woman has been horribly injured by Johnson & Johnson's vaginal mesh product that, unfortunately, they're still making and selling for permanent implantation,” Specter said. “We hope J&J will get the message and take this product off the market for the health and safety of America's women.”
In an April 12 statement, Ethicon called the Superior Court's decision “disappointing.”
“Ethicon doesn't believe this case or other out-of-state cases belong in Pennsylvania and is looking forward to the opportunity to present our arguments to the Pennsylvania Supreme Court,” spokeswoman Mindy Tinsley said in an emailed statement.
The award in Carlino came after more than two weeks of trial, with Kline & Specter attorneys Specter and Kila Baldwin, and Rich Freese of Freese & Goss representing Carlino. Ethicon was represented by William Gage of Butler Snow and Laura H. Smith of Friday, Eldredge & Clark.
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 AllBristol-Myers Squibb Wins Dismissal of $6.4 Billion Lawsuit Alleging Intentional Delay of Cancer Drug
Drugmaker Accused of Overhyping Proposed COVID Treatment Agrees to $3M Settlement
4 minute readPharma Company Raises Patent Infringement Allegations Over Generic Version of Narcolepsy Treatment
Trending Stories
- 1Infant Formula Judge Sanctions Kirkland's Jim Hurst: 'Overtly Crossed the Lines'
- 2Trump's Return to the White House: The Legal Industry Reacts
- 3Election 2024: Nationwide Judicial Races and Ballot Measures to Watch
- 4Climate Disputes, International Arbitration, and State Court Limitations for Global Issues
- 5Judicial Face-Off: Navigating the Ethical and Efficient Use of AI in Legal Practice [CLE Pending]
- 6How Much Does the Frequency of Retirement Withdrawals Matter?
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