The first trial of 1,800 regarding Johnson & Johnson’s defective Gynecare Prolift vaginal mesh was heard in a New Jersey state court in Atlantic City last week. The trial, known as Gross v. Gynecare Inc., concerns a nurse from South Dakota named Linda Gross, who claims that she underwent 18 revision surgeries to first remove the Gynecare Prolift mesh, and then to repair the damages caused by Johnson & Johnson’s notorious surgical mesh product, according to a report published by Bloomberg.
A Johnson & Johnson company official, the first witness to be brought to the stand in the Gross trial, admitted that a subsidiary of the company, Ethicon, who developed and manufactured the Gynecare Prolift mesh, was aware of the product’s high failure rate. In fact, this Johnson & Johnson Ethicon representative, Scott Ciarrocca, confessed that after 6 months about 20% of the Gynecare Prolift mesh devices proved defective, and after a year, the failure rate was documented to be even higher at 27%.
Gross, like the other 1,800 plaintiffs who have filed lawsuits against Johnson & Johnson, have done so because they believe that Johnson & Johnson marketed the defective vaginal mesh in spite of its high failure rate and potential to cause serious health complications, and committed a huge misstep by disregarding these facts in order to sell the device.
In June 2012, Johnson & Johnson announced that it had plans to discontinue sales of four of its vaginal mesh products, and would begin scaling back availability over a four month period. The products that have been recalled include Gynecare Prolift, Prosima Pelvic Floor Repair System, the Prolift+M Gynemesh M, and the Gynecare TVT Secur System.
In explaining its reason for recalling these four vaginal mesh products, a Johnson & Johnson spokesperson refused to refer to the move as a recall, but rather a “discontinuation”, according to a report from Reuters. Furthermore, the Gynecare Prolift mesh recall, according to this same Johnson & Johnson spokesperson, had no relation to the Gynecare Prolift lawsuits nor high failure rates and compromised health. Instead, Johnson & Johnson asserted that plans to stop sales worldwide are concerned with long term market relevance and success rates.
Defective vaginal mesh has caused a significant amount of pain and suffering in patients who received a surgical implant to treat stress urinary incontinence (SUI) or pelvic organ prolapse (POP). Not only have these individuals had to receive numerous revision surgeries, but they also have experienced the following health problems related to defective vaginal mesh, in particular the Gynecare Prolift product:
If you or a loved one has received a surgical implant of vaginal mesh, such as Johnson & Johnson’s Gynecare Prolift, and have experienced serious and negative side effects like those described above, you and your loved one may be eligible to receive compensation for medical expenses, lost wages, and physical and emotional pain and suffering.
For a free legal consultation, contact an experienced trial lawyer at Carey Danis & Lowe today by calling 800.721.2519.References: Defective Medical Device litigation, Transvaginal Mesh