Gynecare Inc Archives - Carey Danis & Lowe

Carey Danis & Lowe Pelvic Mesh Lawyers Weigh in on Ethicon MDL 2327 and Gynecare Prolift Mesh Lawsuit Removal Request

By | Defective Medical Device litigation, Transvaginal Mesh, Uncategorized

Published April 25, 2013 by PR Web

St. Louis, Missouri (PRWEB) April 25, 2013

carey_danis_lowe_law_firm_pharmaceutical_litigation_medical_device_transvaginal_mesh_lawsuitPelvic mesh lawyers at Carey Danis & Lowe continue to follow Ethicon MDL 2327 proceedings currently taking place in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of West Virginia, as the law firm represents women who have been injured by defective pelvic mesh.

A recent update in the Ethicon MDL involves a pretrial order issued by Chief Judge Robert C. Chambers and U.S. District Judge Joseph R. Goodwin. The order pertains to the judge responsible for overseeing the discovery process in the vaginal mesh MDLs. As Judge Mary E. Stanley has retired, any matters pertaining to discovery will now be the responsibility of Judge Cheryl A. Eifert.

Carey Danis & Lowe pelvic mesh lawyers perceive the transference of discovery process responsibility from one judge to another as no impediment to the expedited legal processes inherent in a multidistrict litigation.

According to Carey Danis & Lowe, another noteworthy update in the Ethicon MDL 2327 involves a plaintiff with a case in the Ethicon MDL named Dawn Flores, who recently attempted to have her case moved from the MDL in West Virginia to a California state court, where the plaintiff resides. The case is Flores et al. v. Ethicon Inc. et al., case number 2:12-cv-01804.

Flores filed her vaginal mesh lawsuit against Johnson & Johnson and Ethicon claiming that their Gynecare Prolift mesh was defective in that it eroded, leading to infections and severe pain, in addition to psychological and emotional suffering, according to the Ethicon vaginal mesh trial memorandum and order about Ms. Flores’ case.

Though Ms. Flores’ request was denied, in cases where plaintiffs are severely ill, Carey Danis & Lowe pelvic mesh lawyers consider it important that such lawsuits be put to trial in a timely fashion for the sake of the plaintiff.

A plaintiff in another case that was recently settled, Gross v. Gynecare Inc., Atl-L-6966-10, cited similar problems with Ethicon’s Gynecare Prolift mesh. In Linda Gross’ Gynecare Prolift mesh lawsuit, she alleged that the mesh hardened after implantation, and required numerous surgeries to remove the hardened mesh, according to a Bloomberg report on the case.* Gross v. Gynecare, case number Atl-L-6966-10, was heard in the Superior Court of Atlantic County in Atlantic City, New Jersey.

Pelvic mesh lawyers at Carey Danis & Lowe encourage individuals who have been injured by Ethicon’s Gynecare Prolift to contact our law firm to discuss legal options. Carey Danis & Lowe is offering free legal evaluations of vaginal mesh cases and assistance in filing vaginal mesh lawsuits.


*Bloomberg article about Gross v. Gynecare Inc., case number Atl-L-6966-10:http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-02-25/j-j-failed-to-warn-of-vaginal-mesh-risks-n-j-jury-rules-1-.html

Carey Danis & Lowe is a plaintiff’s litigation firm based in St. Louis, Missouri with law offices across the United States in Illinois, Missouri, and Florida. Carey Danis & Lowe specializes in defective drug and pharmaceutical litigation and class action lawsuits. The Carey Danis & Lowe team is comprised of experienced attorneys working alongside knowledgeable professional staff that includes medical doctors, nurses, and information technology specialists. Contact Carey Danis & Lowe at 800-721-2519.

Plaintiff Awarded $3.35 Million in Gynecare Prolift Lawsuit: Encouraging Verdict for Victims of Defective Vaginal Mesh Products

By | Defective Medical Device litigation, Transvaginal Mesh, Uncategorized

Plaintiff Awarded $3.35 Million in Gynecare Prolift Lawsuit: Encouraging Verdict for Victims of Defective Vaginal Mesh ProductsIn a Gynecare Prolift vaginal mesh lawsuit being heard in a New Jersey Superior court, the plaintiff, Linda Gross, was awarded $3.35 million. The trial, overseen by Judge Carol Higbee in Atlantic City, New Jersey, involves a South Dakota resident who claims to have been in severe and unmitigated pain and to have endured 18 operations to remove and repair damages caused by Ethicon’s Gynecare Prolift vaginal mesh.

Though the jury was split in their final decision in Gross’s case, according to a Bloomberg News report, they did ultimately award her the $3.35 million for lost wages, medical expenses, and pain and suffering. The verdict was read on February 25, with the next stage of the Gross trial moving on to cover the matter of punitive damages. The punitive damages, intended to penalize defendants for intentional negligence, could total $16.75 million in Gross v. Gynecare Inc.

The jury ruled that Johnson & Johnson did not sufficiently inform Gross’s doctor about the health risks associated with Ethicon’s Gynecare Prolift vaginal mesh. In reaching its verdict, the jury in Gross’s case also stated that Johnson & Johnson employed misleading advertising in promoting Ethicon’s mesh.

In the past several years, there have been mounting reports of serious injuries related to an implant of Ethicon’s vaginal mesh product. One complication with the Gynecare Prolift vaginal mesh involves the surgical mesh hardening following implantation. The hardening causes severe pain, vaginal exposure, and becomes more difficult to extract if removal is necessary. These were the health complications raised by Gross’s attorney during the trial.

In addition to these problems, women have also reported bleeding, infection, painful intercourse, and vaginal mesh erosion.

According to a Reuters report on the New Jersey case, there still remain 1,800 Gynecare Prolift vaginal mesh lawsuits in the New Jersey court. Furthermore, in a Fox News report on Gross’s case, Johnson & Johnson made a statement on February 25 that in the U.S., there are 4,000 Gynecare Prolift lawsuits pending in courts across the country. Also, in the vaginal mesh MDL in a West Virginia federal court, there are approximately 11,000 vaginal mesh cases pending against five vaginal mesh manufacturers, among them Ethicon, C.R. Bard Inc., and Boston Scientific Corp.

The verdict reached in Gross’s case comes as welcome news to those individuals who have been injured by Ethicon’s Gynecare Prolift vaginal mesh. Lawyers at Carey Danis & Lowe continue to closely watch the Gross case in New Jersey for the total awarded to Gross and her husband in punitive damages. Furthermore, following this encouraging verdict, Carey Danis & Lowe is continuing to accept Gynecare Prolift claims, and will offer individuals free legal evaluations to assist in determining if a vaginal mesh lawsuit should be filed.

For more information about how to file a Gynecare Prolift lawsuit, contact an experienced trial lawyer at Carey Danis & Lowe by calling 800.721.2519 or by submitting a Carey Danis & Lowe legal claim form.

Closing Arguments Delivered in Gynecare Prolift Trial in New Jersey

By | Defective Medical Device litigation, Transvaginal Mesh, Uncategorized

Closing Arguments Delivered in Gynecare Prolift Trial in New JerseyA decision by the jury should be delivered soon regarding a lawsuit filed in New Jersey against Johnson & Johnson and Ethicon, the developer and manufacturer of the Gynecare Prolift vaginal mesh product. Late last week, both sides shared their closing arguments, which leaves the jury to deliberate on the testimony presented before them since the start of the trial on January 10, 2013.

The case is Gross v. Gynecare Inc., and is being heard in a SuperiorCourtofAtlanticCounty in Atlantic City, New Jersey by Judge Carol Higbee. The plaintiff is a former nurse from South Dakota, Linda Gross. According to a Bloomberg News report, Gross’s lawsuit is the first Gynecare Prolift lawsuit to go to trial out of 1,800.

Gross filed the Gynecare Prolift lawsuit against Johnson & Johnson alleging that the pharmaceutical company neglected to disclose the health risks connected to use of their vaginal mesh product. Furthermore, in closing statements, the plaintiff’s lawyer stated that Ethicon was fully knowledgeable of the health risks linked to implantation of the Gynecare Prolift vaginal mesh, but ignored those risks in marketing the vaginal mesh product.

Health complications linked to the implantation of vaginal mesh like Johnson & Johnson’s Gynecare Prolift include the following:

  • severe pelvic pain
  • bleeding
  • infections
  • vaginal mesh exposure
  • vaginal mesh erosion
  • vaginal mesh hardening causing tissue scarring
  • several surgical procedures to remove the mesh

Lawyers at Carey Danis & Lowe are closely monitoring the Gynecare Prolift trial in New Jersey, and are currently evaluating Gynecare Prolift cases. The law firm of Carey Danis & Lowe seeks justice for our clients who have been made the victims of negligent pharmaceutical giants.

If you or someone you love has been injured by the Johnson & Johnson Gynecare Prolift vaginal mesh, you may be eligible to receive compensation for your suffering, losses, medical expenses, and more. Contact an experienced trial lawyer at Carey Danis & Lowe for a free legal evaluation and to file a Gynecare Prolift lawsuit by calling 800.721.2519 or by filling out our legal claims form.

First Gynecare Prolift Lawsuit Trial Moves Forward in New Jersey Court: Johnson & Johnson Official Concedes to High Failure Rate of Defective Gynecare Prolift Mesh

By | Defective Medical Device litigation, Transvaginal Mesh, Uncategorized

Kugel & Transvaginal Mesh Patch ComplicationsThe 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:

  • infections
  • vaginal erosion
  • organ perforation
  • severe pain in pelvic region
  • pain during intercourse
  • vaginal discharge and bleeding

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.