Calif. Asks Judge for $700M in Penalties Against J&J Over Mesh Devices
The first trial between a state attorney general and a manufacturer of transvaginal mesh devices opened Monday, with a lawyer for the state of California claiming Johnson & Johnson's Ethicon misrepresented the safety of its products to doctors and their patients.
July 15, 2019 at 06:02 PM
5 minute read
A lawyer for the state of California asked a San Diego judge Monday to impose more than $700 million in civil penalties against Johnson & Johnson over its transvaginal mesh devices.
The bench trial is the first between a state attorney general and a manufacturer of transvaginal mesh devices, implanted in women to treat pelvic organ prolapse and urinary problems. The 2016 case alleges that Johnson & Johnson's Ethicon Inc. misrepresented the safety of its mesh devices to doctors and their patients.
“We're here today because Johnson & Johnson, and its wholly-owned subsidiaries, Ethicon Inc. and Ethicon U.S. LLC, misrepresented to doctors and misrepresented to patients the dangerous properties of their mesh material that leads to serious complications,” said California Deputy Attorney General Jinsook Ohta in her opening statement, broadcast by Courtroom View Network. “They did this despite the fact that the company knew the risks, but they went ahead and misled the public and ignored the internal warning signs they could have heeded to stop their deceptive behavior.”
She sought $704 million in statutory penalties against the New Jersey-based company.
Johnson & Johnson attorney Carolyn Kubota, a Los Angeles partner at Covington & Burling, refuted those allegations in her own opening statement.
“Ethicon adequately disclosed the risks of our products, and they did so in a way that was clear to doctors and clear to patients,” she said. She told the judge that 2,000 studies have looked at the safety of mesh products and that a “cottage industry” of plaintiffs lawyers and experts were behind California Attorney General Xavier Becerra's lawsuit.
She noted that 82 “leading doctors” in California had written a letter to Becerra opposing his lawsuit and endorsing Ethicon's mesh products, which are the “gold standard” in the medical community.
A similar case brought against Ethicon by Washington Attorney General Bob Ferguson settled April 22 for $9.9 million just hours before opening statements were set to begin.
The trial in San Diego County Superior Court features the same defense team as in the Washington state case: In addition to Kubota, the team includes Butler Snow's William Gage, a partner in Jackson, Mississippi; and Steve Brody, head of the products liability and mass torts practice at O'Melveny & Myers, where he is a partner in Washington, D.C.
Ethicon is one of several companies facing numerous trials over its transvaginal mesh devices. It also has settled thousands of cases brought by women alleging that the devices caused pain during sex and urinary problems that, in most cases, required surgical removal. Verdicts have reached as high as $120 million, but Ethicon also has won some trials.
In addition to Washington and California, the states of Mississippi and Kentucky also have sued Ethicon.
Ohta told San Diego County Superior Court Judge Eddie Sturgeon that Johnson & Johnson used “aggressive and deceptive” advertising, recruited “key opinion leaders” and lobbied professional organizations to convince doctors and patients to use transvaginal mesh devices, despite ignoring its own medical directors who flagged serious complications for 18 years.
“The company knew from the time of launch that these mesh devices carried significant and long-term risks but lied about them,” she said.
The company disclosed in its instruction materials a potential risk of erosion but failed to list a “whole host of unique dangers,” which included chronic pain during sex, urinary problems and complicated surgeries to remove the mesh, she said. She said women would testify during the trial about having a “permanently destroyed vagina,” or her husband having “scratch marks on his penis.”
Kubota, in response, called the risk warnings a matter of wording.
“First of all, our risk disclosure absolutely discloses the risks of our devices,” she said. “They just don't do so in the words the attorney general would prefer.”
The U.S. Food and Drug Administration issued warnings about the devices in 2008 and 2011. More than 50,000 women in California had the devices implanted in them, Ohta said.
She based her damages request on $5,000 per violation in statutory damages under both California's unfair competition law and false advertising law. A state's expert would testify that Johnson & Johnson circulated its deceptive messages 196,204 times, she said. She also said that $704 million would be reasonable based on Johnson & Johnson's conduct over so many years, and its assets of $70.4 billion.
“The company had the truth since 1998, when they were the only source of this information, and they did everything to cover it up with their deceptive marketing,” she said. “While the discretion will rest with the court in terms of penalties, the people contend the conduct and high stakes concerning women's health merits maximum penalties.”
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 AllHawaii wildfire victims spared from testifying after last-minute deal over $4B settlement
4 minute readState Appeals Court Revives BraunHagey Lawsuit Alleging $4.2M Unlawful Wire to China
3 minute readApple Disputes 'Efforts to Manufacture' Imaging Sensor Claims Against iPhone 15 Technology
Trending Stories
- 1Gunderson Dettmer Opens Atlanta Office With 3 Partners From Morris Manning
- 2Decision of the Day: Court Holds Accident with Post Driver Was 'Bizarre Occurrence,' Dismisses Action Brought Under Labor Law §240
- 3Judge Recommends Disbarment for Attorney Who Plotted to Hack Judge's Email, Phone
- 4Two Wilkinson Stekloff Associates Among Victims of DC Plane Crash
- 5Two More Victims Alleged in New Sean Combs Sex Trafficking Indictment
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