New Round of Essure Lawsuits Filed vs. Bayer Healthcare Pharmaceuticals, Inc in Pennsylvania Federal Court

“Bayer Facing New Litigation Over Essure Birth Control Device”

By Mark York (November 20, 2017)

Mass Tort Nexus

 

 

 

 

 

 

(MASS TORT NEXUS)  On November 2, 2017, fifty-three plaintiffs from Florida, Illinois, Texas and other states across the country have filed a lawsuit over allegations that Bayer’s Essure permanent female birth control device caused serious injuries. This filing is another in a series of ongoing Essure lawsuits against Bayer in different federal and state venues across the country, including the  Bayer Essure Litigation USDC Missouri Case No. 4:17-cv-00865.

The primary claims against Bayer, that upon insertion of the device, by insertiing micro-inserts into the fallopian tubes which then anchor and elicit tissue growth, theoretically causing the blockage. However, in reality, the device migrates from the tubes, perforates organs, breaks into pieces and/or corrodes, wreaking havoc on the female body.

Maria Gonzalez, Israel Gonzalez, and the other plaintiffs filed a multi-plaintiff complaint on Nov. 2 in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania against Bayer Healthcare Pharmaceuticals Inc. alleging negligence and other counts under case number 2:17-cv-04936-JP, U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania. Additionally there are other multi-plaintiff actions against Bayer, where Essure is the product in suit, see California JCCP Complex Litigation Docket consolidated Essure cases pending there, under Essure Product Cases and Actions, JCCP Proceeding No. 4887, Alameda County Superior Court.

According to the most recent federal complaint, the plaintiffs or their partners were implanted with defendant’s Essure device. They allege that the devices “migrated, fractured, punctured internal organs and/or caused other serious injuries.” The company has long been aware of the adverse events and concerns raised over the Essure products, but have yet to admit liability, and have vigorously defended all claims against the company and Essure.

The plaintiffs state that Bayer Healthcare Pharmaceuticals Inc. is responsible because the defendant “manipulated their reports to the FDA and presented false and misleading information, which, in turn, resulted in plaintiffs’ consent to implant not being informed because critical facts regarding the nature and quality of side effects from Essure were concealed from plaintiffs and their physicians,” as cited in the complaint.

The plaintiffs seek past and future general damages, economic and special damages, medical expenses, punitive and exemplary damages, court costs, interest and any further relief the court grants.

These 53 plaintiffs, combined with the other lawsuits filed in various courts across the country now total more than 1500 claims against Bayer, where women have asserted that the company was aware of the damage and healthcare risks of it’s Essure products, and has intentionally disregarded the ever growing evidence that shows the product to be dangerous. If Bayer Healthcare is taking the same position in this new round of claims as in others, plaintiffs will be in for a long and protracted legal fight, with Bayer being an unwilling party to come to the table for any worthwhile discussions. To follow this emerging litigation see Mass Tort Nexus Essure Litigation Case No. 2:17-cv-04936-RBS.

Case Docket: U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania case number 2:17-cv-04936-JP

 

Read More

WEEKLY MDL UPDATE by MASS TORT NEXUS for Week of November 13, 2017

The week in mass torts around the country:

By Mark York, Mass Tort Nexus (November 16, 2017)

favicon
MASS TORT NEXUS

 Verdicts on November 16, 2017: 

J&J gets hit hard again, in a $247 million Pinnacle hip implant verdict, DePuy Orthopaedics Pinnacle Implant MDL 2244, in bellwether trial of 3:15-cv-03489 Alicea et al v. DePuy Orthopaedics Inc et al. (DePuy Pinnacle Hip Implant MDL 2244 Briefcase)

Drug maker Auxilium won a defense verdict in their Testim product bellwether trial, where plaintiffs claimed it caused a heart attack in a verdict reached in the US District Court Northern District of Illinois, Judge Kennelly, in MDL 2545 Testosterone Replacement Therapy. (Testosterone Therapy MDL 2545 USDC ND Illinois)

Johnson & Johnson Wins a Defense Verdict in Los Angeles Court Talcum Powder Mesothelioma Trial, Jury Finds J&J Not Liable in Tina Herford et al. v. Johnson & Johnson Case number BC646315, consolidated in LAOSD Asbestos Cases, case number JCCP4674, in the Superior Court of the State of California, County of Los Angeles.  (J&J Talcum Powder Cancer Litigation Briefcase)

Senator Bob Menendez  judge declares a mistrial in New Jersey federal court trial, after a hung jury cannot agree unanimously on charges. Question is- Are the Senator and his doctor friend in Florida, just that-were they just friends or was there active bribery taking place?

Recent Case Updates:

>Plaintiff in DePuy Pinnacle Hip Implant Trial Asks Texas Jury For A Hundred Million + In Punitive Damages

At the close of arguments in the latest DePuy MDL 2244 trial on Monday November 13, 2017, six New York plaintiffs asked a Texas federal jury to hit Johnson & Johnson and it’s DePuy subsidiary, with at least a nine-figure punitive damages award. Attorneys asked that J&J and DePuy be punished for making and marketing their Pinnacle model hip implants, an alleged defective line of metal-on-metal hip implants, that have caused many thousands of injuries to unsuspecting patients. If this jury follows suit on prior Pinnacle bellwether jury awards, then J&J and DePuy should be ready for a massive verdict, as the last jury awarded California plaintiffs over one billion dollars in December 2016, sending a clear message that the company’s Pinnacle design and subsequent marketing policies have failed.

METALLSOIS DAMAGE

Closing arguments wrapped up on the two-month bellwether trial, where plaintiffs claimed they suffered “metallosis” which caused tissue damage and negative reactions to the Pinnacle Ultamet line of metal-on-metal hip implants made by J&J’s DePuy Orthopaedics Inc. unit. Depending on the jury verdict, perhaps J&J will consider coming to the settlement table if another massive verdict is awarded, or they may continue the aggressive “we’ve done no wrong stance” resulting in more plaintiff verdicts in the future..

 >Travelers Insurance Wins Declaratory Judgment Suit Over Defense Coverage In Orange County and Chicago Opioid Lawsuits:

“California Appeals court says Watson not covered”

Watson Pharma, Inc. and it’s parent Activis, Inc. were denied insurance coverage in a November 6, 2017 ruling by the California State Court of Appeals in the 2014 Declaratory Judgment action filed by Travelers Insurance in an Orange County, CA court where Travelers successfully asserted claims that they were not required to defend or indemnify Watson in the underlying opioid based litigation filed by Santa Clara and Orange County against opioid manufacturers, due to Watson’s “intentional bad conduct” in their business practices related to sales and marketing of it’s opioid products. The Appeals Court also excluded Watson’s coverage in a similar opioid lawsuit against them in a Chicago, Illinois federal case where the City of Chicago filed similar claims against Watson over opioid marketing abuses in 2014. Perhaps other insurance carrier will take notice and look closer at denying policy coverage for many other opioid manufacturers who have been sued across the country in cases with almost the exact claims as those alleged by Santa Clara County and the City of Chicago.

>NEW XARELTO TRIAL:

Former FDA Commissioner Testifies in Philadelphia Xarelto Trial-

“Xarelto Warnings Are Inadequate”

— Former head of the Food and Drug Administration, Commissioner David Kessler testified during the first state court trial in Philadelphia, telling the jury on Tuesday that “warning labels for the blood thinner Xarelto failed to provide adequate information to doctors and consumers about the risk of bleeding that some patients could face when using the drug”.

David Kessler, FDA Commissioner under President George H.W. Bush and President Bill Clinton, told jurors that Bayer AG and Johnson & Johnson’s warning labels for the medication understated the risk of significant bleeding events that had been seen in television and print ads across the country for years, and failed to disclose the true risks associated with prescribing the blockbuster drug. This trial, expected to take six weeks, is the first state court bellwether trial for the blood thinner Xarelto, in the Philadelphia Court of Common Pleas, the prior trials took place in federal courts in Louisiana and Mississippi where the defense prevailed in all 3 trials earlier this year. Those trials were all bellwether trials, as part of the Xarelto MDL 2592 in front of Judge Eldon Fallon, US District Court, ED Louisiana. Will the change of venue to Pennsylvania State Court have a different outcome than the three prior Xeralto trial losses?

>Luzerene County, Pennsylvania Files RICO Suit Over Opioid Marketing Against Drug Makers

Luzerne County in Northeast Pennsylvania has filed a federal RICO based lawsuit accusing pharmaceutical companies including Purdue, Pharma, Endo, Janssen and Teva of violating the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act by illegally marketing highly addictive painkillers that have contributed to a costly national opioid epidemic. The suit filed in US district Court of Pennsylvania by Luzerne County is one of many cases opioid drugmakers and distributors are facing as state and local governments seek to recoup costs they’ve incurred in the increased marketing and prescribing of opioid painkillers, and the resultant spikes in addiction and overdose.

OPIOID MARKETING ABUSES

“The manufacturers aggressively pushed highly addictive, dangerous opioids, falsely representing to doctors that patients would only rarely succumb to drug addiction,” the complaint, which was filed on Wednesday, said. “These pharmaceutical companies … turned patients into drug addicts for their own corporate profit.”
“The lawsuit accused the drugmakers of using false and deceptive marketing practices over the course of the last two decades, including pushing the opioid painkillers for treatment of chronic pain, to boost prescriptions for the drugs

COMMON CLAIMS AGAINST ALL OPIOiD MAKERS

Among the companies’ primary claims, cited by Luzerne county and others, evidence the manufacturers intentionally misled consumers, was that the drugs were not addictive when prescribed to treat legitimate pain. This is one of the key claims used by all parties filing suit against the opioid manufacturers, across the entire country.

Case heading is: Luzerne County v. Purdue Pharma LP et al., case number 3:17-cv-2043, in the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania.

>Opioid Litigation Roundup: An Overview Of Recently Filed Cases and MDL 2804

In addition to the many counties and other communities from across the country that have filed lawsuits against opioid manufacturers in MDL 2802, set for a JPML consolidation hearing November 30, 2017 a new group of plaintiffs have joined the increasing pool of parties filing suit against Big Pharma opioid manufacturers and their distributors. Unions are now joining in the suits alleging that the business practices of the opioid makers and distributors caused catastrophic healthcare and related labor problems everywhere in the country over the last 15 years. Locals from the Electrical Workers; Commercial Food Service and Teamsters are now plaintiffs in the MDL 2804, which if approved at the upcoming JPML hearings in St Louis, will probably cause a flood of additional filings by unions across the country.

State attorneys general, a Native American tribe and individual consumers are among the ever increasing pool of plaintiffs who’ve brought lawsuits against drugmakers, pharmacies and distributors allegedly responsible for epidemic levels of opioid abuse. As word spreads among the network of local governments, and discussion take place about the municipal opioid lawsuits being filed, there will be a flood of new complaints filed, that will match or exceed the number of cases filed in the massive “Tobacco Litigation” which is quickly gaining comparison as the opioid case filings are looking to be comparable in size and probably exceed the tobacco litigation in damages.

Read More

JOHNSON & JOHNSON ACCUSED OF WITNESS TAMPERING IN TWO DIFFERENT TRIALS CURRENTLY UNDERWAY

Does Win At Any Cost Apply to J&J Legal Strategy Even At Trial?

By Mark York (November 7, 2017)

 

 

 

 

 

(Mass Tort Nexus)  Federal Judge Edward Kinkeade has requested the US Attorneys Office and the Federal Bureau of Investigations (FBI) open an investigation and question witnesses regarding potential witness tampering in a currently underway DePuy Pinnacle hip implant trial. The trial is taking place in the US District Court of Texas in Dallas. The trial is the third bellwether trial in Multidistrict Litigation No. 2244, where thousands of plaintiffs have filed suit in the DePuy Orthopaedics MDL 2244 Pinnacle Hip Implant Litigation. The last trial resulted in a massive initial verdict of $1 billion, subsequently reduced by Judge Kinkeade to just over $500 million.

DePuy, a subsidiary of Johnson and Johnson, has been sued along with J&J for their metal-on-metal Pinnacle hip devices, due to the release of cobalt and chromium metals into a patient’s body, resulting in the onset of metallosis, pseudotumors, and other adverse medical conditions which require surgery to remove the defective device, as well as ongoing treatment to address the related side effects.

As to J&J’s alleged witness tampering, Judge Kinkeade stated the potential witness tampering was “disturbing and disconcerting to me”. The issue revolves around interaction between am upcoming trial witness Dr. David Shein and a sales representative for DePuy. Dr Shein claims that during a surgical procedure he was warned of business ramifications,  in connection with his planned appearance as a witness during the DePuy Pinnacle trial.

Lead plaintiff trial attorney Mark Lanier noted:

“It is extremely concerning to me when there are requirements under the federal law, as well as state law, that witnesses not be tampered with, that—that it’s a serious felony, that it involves prison time, that it cuts to the core of who we are as a people and what our courts are about”

In the other witness tampering allegation during a current trial, J&J subsidiary Janssen Pharmaceuticals is accused of interfering with a treating physician and witness in the just started Xarelto trial in the Philadelphia Court of Common Pleas, see XARELTO Case No. 2349 in Philadephia Court of Common Pleas – Complex Litigation (PA State Court). This trial is the first state court Xarelto trial, where plaintiff Lynn Hartman filed suit against Janssen and Bayer over claims that Xarelto caused a major gastrointestinal bleed. The trial start was delayed by word that a meeting took place between a key witness, Dr. Timothy Aldridge, the plaintiff’s treating physician, and a Janssen sales representative.

Hartman’s lawyers said that scheduled testimony from Dr. Aldridge had essentially changed from indicating that Hartman had suffered a gastrointestinal bleed complicated by Xarelto, to denying whether he knew Hartman had suffered from a gastrointestinal bleed and being hostile to Hartman’s attorney.

Janssen claimed the meeting was routine, but opposing counsel claims that this contact, as well as the DePuy Pinnacle trial witness contact show a pattern of interference and a willingness of Johnson & Johnson employees to attempt to influence legal proceedings in ways that are often consider illegal.

In unsuccessful legal maneuvering, J&J requested a gag order to prevent the public from knowing about the DePuy trial witness tampering issue, but the judge denied their request. Prior verdicts against DePuy for Pinnacle Hip Implant cases included jury awards of $1.4 billion and $498 million in the two prior bellwether trials. The Xarelto trial tampering issue is still being reviewed by the court.

 

 

Read More

XARELTO in Philadelphia Court: Will The BMSQ “California Plavix” SCOTUS Ruling Affect Out of State Plaintiffs?

XARELTO in Philadelphia Court of Common Pleas: Will The “California Plavix” Supreme Court Ruling Affect Out of State Plaintiffs?

By Mark A. York

Mass Tort Nexus (September 26, 2017)

 

 

 

 

 

Bayer, which has a headquarters in Pennsylvania, recently used a June 2017 U.S. Supreme Court decision on out of state plaintiffs and court jurisdictions to dismiss dozens of lawsuits from a Missouri federal court in the “Essure” birth control litigation. It remains to be seen if Bayer will use the same strategy in other jurisdictions, like Philadelphia, where the Xarelto blood thinner cases are piling up, see XARELTO Case No. 2349 in Philadelphia Court of Common Pleas Briefcase.

Thousands of out-of-state plaintiffs flocked to Philadelphia recently to file lawsuits over prescription drugs, but a recent U.S. Supreme Court decision might deter that practice in the future, see  June 19, 2017 Bristol-Myers v. Superior Court of California (Plavix Jurisdiction).

The many claimants who have brought their lawsuits in Philadelphia will have to see if pharmaceutical companies like Bayer, Johnson & Johnson and others who are facing many thousands of other claims from out-of-state plaintiffs, will rely on the June 19th U.S. Supreme Court ruling that states an out-of-state plaintiff couldn’t file suit in California, due to a lack of jurisdiction.

The Supreme Court justices ruled 8-1 in favor of Bristol Myers-Squibb after the company argued plaintiffs living outside California who alleged injury from BMS’s blood thinner Plavix, should not be able to sue the company in that state.

The Supreme Court ruled that, essentially the “all inclusive view of personal jurisdiction by non-resident plaintiffs has come to an end.” Plavix was not designed or made in California, and the company is headquartered in New York. The ruling may simply force thousands of pending cases across the country to be refiled in other venues, as plaintiff firms are not likely to simply withdraw the cases as massive losses, without having their day in one court or another.

A non-residents plaintiff can file suit in the Philadelphia County Court of Common Pleas, if the defendant is either incorporated in Pennsylvania, or has a principal place of business in Pennsylvania, which limits the legal options for Bayer, based on their corporate headquarters in the state.

Two of the biggest mass tort programs in the Philadelphia Complex Litigation Center docket are the Risperdal litigation, which is produced by Janssen Pharmaceuticals (a Johnson & Johnson subsidiary) and allegedly causes males to develop breasts, Janssen has been hit with several large multi-million dollar verdicts in Risperdal trials. The other is Xarelto, a blood-thinner made by Bayer and Johnson & Johnson that allegedly causes uncontrolled bleeding events, and the makers failed to warn of the dangers. The Xarelto MDL 2592 in US district Court ED Louisiana . see Xarelto MDL 2592 Mass Tort Nexus Briefcase, where close to twenty thousand additional Xarelto cases are pending.

Bayer will be having a much harder time using the BMS Plavix decision to dismiss non-resident plaintiffs from the Philadelphia courtroom, given it’s headquarters in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania.

Read More

Plaintiffs Denied New Xarelto Bellwether Trials After Orr and Boudreaux Hearings Over Trial Losses in MDL 2592

Judge Fallon Denies Plaintiffs New Xarelto MDL 2592 Bellwether Trials After Hearings Last Week

 

 

 

 

 

Xarelto MDL 2592 Judge Eldon Fallon ruled Tuesday September 19th at the close of motion hearings, that plaintiffs Joseph Orr and Joseph Boudreaux would not be granted new trials. The plaintiffs were on the losing side in the first two bellwether trials in the Xarelto multidistrict litigation versus Janssen and Bayer over claims that the blockbuster blood thinner Xarelto caused unstoppable bleeding, see Xarelto MDL 2592 Briefcase.

TRANSCRIPT EXCERPTS

In denying the motions, Judge. Fallon once again stated that he “had given a lot of thought to these issues prior to trial, and I don’t shoot from the hip” on such rulings and added “I realy feel the decisions I made were, made properly” refencing the prior Orr and Boudreaux trial rulings in the hearing transcripts, see Xarelto MDL Hearing Transcript Denying New Bellwether Trials. His hearing comments weer further clarified in the court’s 9.22.2017  order where Judge Fallon outlined his prior trial rulings and the denial of new trials for Orr and Boudreaux, Judge Fallon 9.22.17 Order Denying Bellwether Retrials.

PLAINTIFF MOTIONS

The main argument raised by plaintiffs related to exclusion from trial of data determined inadmissible by the court due to materials having international based information.

The court’s decision to exclude evidence from a peer-reviewed publication was based on the false premise that the publication included foreign regulatory standards that could confuse the jury, Boudreaux counsel argued. The exclusion of this evidence influenced the jury to believe that no medical associations or peer-reviewed publications backed a diagnostic test that would determine whether emergency room patients had recently taken Xarelto, in their June filing for the retrial.

The court also should have allowed statements from foreign labels into evidence so that Boudreaux could demonstrate that foreign regulatory authorities back the prothrombin time test, Boudreaux also claimed in June. Boudreaux further argued the court’s instructions to the jury were too broad, as they indicated the companies were required to disclose to patients only tests that were FDA approved, implying the companies weren’t required to disclose a prothrombin time test that was not FDA approved.

“The fight against Xarelto is a marathon not a sprint,” per Andy Birchfield, of the Beasley Allen firm and co-lead counsel for the plaintiffs, who also stated “There are more than 19,000 victims who are relying on the courts for justice. We will continue fighting for the thousands of innocent victims injured or killed by Xarelto.”

Janssen issued a statement agreeing with the court ruling.
“We believe the court correctly denied plaintiff’s motions for new trials and that the verdicts returned by the juries in Orr and Boudreaux were amply supported by the evidence,” Janssen spokesperson Sarah Freeman said in a statement.

FOURTH BELLWETHER TRIAL MOVED TO 2018

In a related case development, the fourth bellwether trial of William Henry, initially set for trial in October 2017 in the US District Court ND Texas has been continued until early 2018, William Henry vs. Janssen et al Complaint. Perhaps this long break between trials signals potential settlement discussions will begin.

 

Read More

Why Has Bayer Stopped “Essure” Use In The UK and EU? Is it because women need a hysterectomy to remove the birth control device?

By Mark A. York (September 19, 2017)

Mass Tort Nexus

“Women are forced to undergo hysterectomies to remove a birth control device, Essure which is manufactured and marketed by Bayer AG, according to the British Medical Review Board”

 

 

 

 

 

 

The Essure birth control implant is used to permanently sterilize women, but is now recognized as a cause of significant side effects and complications also known in the healthcare industry as “adverse events” with the United Kingdom and European Union now restricting use of the permanent birth control device. This action has now started the FDA review in the United States of Essure and the process that Bayer stated showed the  device was tested and determined safe.

One woman in Great Britian – who later had her uterus removed – said she was left suicidal due to the “unbearable” pain, and felt she was a burden to her family.

The manufacturer Bayer says Essure is safe and the benefits outweigh the risks, which has been met with speculation as the sale of the implants in the EU was temporarily suspended this month and Bayer has asked hospitals in the UK not to use the device during this time.

“Too painful to move”

Laura Linkson, was alo fitted with the Essure device in 2013, and said the pain left her suicidal.

“The device was sold to me as a simple and easy procedure. I was told that I’d be in and out of the doctor’s office in 10 minutes and that there’d be no recovery time.

“I went from being a mum who was doing everything with her children, to a mum that was stuck in bed unable to move without pain, at some points being suicidal.

The small coil implants, which are made of nickel and polyester (PET) fibres, are used as a sterilization device to stop eggs reaching the womb.

They are inserted into the fallopian tubes where they trigger inflazmation, causing scar tissue to build up and eventually block the tubes, known as a hysteroscopic sterilization.

They can cause intense pain, and some women are thought to react badly to the nickel and plastic.

Because of the way the coils attach to the fallopian tubes, the only way to take them out is to remove a woman’s fallopian tubes and often her uterus.

In other cases the device has been found to perforate fallopian tubes and fallen out, embedding itself elsewhere in the body.

Victoria Dethier was implanted with Essure in 2012 and for three years could not work out why she felt so unwell. “There were moments where I couldn’t get out of bed I was in so much pain. It felt like I was dying, like something was killing me from the inside,” she said.

She thinks her body was reacting to the PET fibres designed to cause inflammation.

She had a hysterectomy to remove the device in 2015.  “Straight away there was a difference, I’d experienced a horrible taste in my mouth and that had gone,” she explained.as well as  I’d lost a lot of hair and that came back within 12 months, it was incredible.”

“We need acknowledgement by Bayer”

The medicines and healthcare products regulatory agency (MHRA – UK) has been criticized for not responding to the increasing evidence regarding the device.

In 2015, a study published in the British Medical Journal (BMJ) suggested that women who had a hysteroscopic sterilization were 10 times more likely to need follow-up surgery than those who had a traditional sterilization – 2.4% of those surveyed, as opposed to 0.2% amongst those having a standard sterilization.

In the US more than 15,000 women have reported problems to the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA), including pain, allergic reactions and “migration of device” that are involved in thousands of lawsuits versus Bayer Corporation and it’s German parent Bayer, AG.

Carl Heneghan, from the Centre for Evidence-Based Medicine at Oxford University, has criticized the regulator’s failure to act on such findings.  “How much evidence do you need to say let’s withdraw this product from the market?” he asked.

Victoria Dethier is angry that she and so many other women feel they have been ignored “No-one is listening to us, and now there are many women coming forward… we need to be acknowledged.”

Bayer Says “No long-term evidence of adverse events”

The full extent of the problem in the UK is not known.

The MHRA rejected the Victoria Derbyshire program’s Freedom of Information request asking how many women have reported problems.

The NHS does not have figures for the total number of women who have been fitted with Essure, or who have had it removed.

However, the clinical trial that led to the device being approved has been criticized for not considering the long-term effects of the implants, which Bayer has defended to this day. “The trial… only followed up women for one year, so nobody has a real understanding of what happens with this device after two years, three years, five years,” Mr Heneghan explained, and based on worldwide reporting of thousands of “adverse Events” it now seems that Bayer will have to begin the process of accepting responsibility for the Essure device medical problems claimed by the thousands of women who had the device implanted.

Some women who have experienced problems say they were not informed about the risks.

But Ben Peyton-Jones, a British consultant-obstetrician and gynecologist, said the device should still be used in some instances. Starting “I think it has a place for women who can’t have keyhole surgery and who are explained the risks very carefully,” when asked about the continued viability of Essure.

“When used correctly, according to the manufacturer’s guidance and in trained hands, it is safe.”

European Union Essure Use Suspended

The sale of Essure implants in the EU has now been suspended for further investigation and hospitals have been asked by Bayer not to use their existing stocks during this time.  This is a voluntary request and up to individual trusts to decide what to do.

The company said that independent reviews of Essure had concluded that the benefits outweighed the risks.

“Patient safety and appropriate use of Essure are the greatest priorities for Bayer, and the company fully stands behind Essure as an appropriate choice for women who desire permanent contraception,” it added in a statement. Bayer will immediately start damage control in the USA as soon as the UK-EU restrictions on Essure become known, specifically in the massive Essure Multidistrict Litigation, wher thousands of women in the United States are alleging major complications and onset of medical disability due to the Essure “adverse events” even while Bayer insisted the product was safe.

“Many women with Essure rely on this form of contraception without any side effects.”

The MHRA said it had no evidence to suggest this product was unsafe, and that the recent suspension did not suggest any increased risk to patient safety.

It said it was important for healthcare professionals to discuss the risks with patients before a procedure.

 

Read More

Dora Mingo vs Janssen and Bayer (Xarelto) Trial Update: Plaintiff Closes Her Case on August 16, 2017

(Dora Mingo vs. Janssen Research & Development, LLC et al. Case No. 2:15-cv-03469)

 DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR JUDGMENT AS A MATTER OF LAW AT THE CLOSE OF PLAINTIFF’S CASE-IN-CHIEF

The third Xarelto MDL 2592, bellwether trial is proceeding in US District Court of Mississippi in front of MDL Judge Eldon Fallon, where plaintiff Dora Mingo resides, see Xarelto MDL 2592 Mass Tort Nexus Briefcase.  At the close of plaintiff’s case-in-chief on August 16, 2017 defendants Janssen Research & Development and Bayer Pharma AG, et al, moved the Court for judgment as a matter of law on Plaintiff’s design-defect and failure-to-warn-or-instruct claims under the Mississippi Product Liability Act (“MPLA”) see, Defendants Motion for Judgment as a Matter of Law.

Plaintiff have asserted two causes of action under Miss. Code Ann. § 11-1-63. Plaintiff first asserts that Xarelto is defectively designed because it was brought to market without an  accompanying rivaroxaban-specific anti-Factor Xa assay. Plaintiff also claims that Xarelto is unreasonably dangerous due to inadequate warning or instruction because Defendants failed to instruct physicians to use Neoplastin PT at the initiation of therapy to identify patients at an increased risk of bleeding.

Defendants state in their assertions that they are entitled to judgment as a matter of law on Plaintiff’s design-defect claim because an adjunct rivaroxaban-specific anti-Factor Xa assay to be used with Xarelto is not an alternative anticoagulant design and is therefore not a feasible alternative design under the MPLA.3 See Elliot v. El Paso Corp., 181 So. 3d 263, 273 (Miss. 2015); Clark v. Brass Eagle,Inc., 866 So. 2d 456, 461 (Miss. 2004). In their second assertion, they claim they are entitled to a trial win on Plaintiff’s design-defect claim because Plaintiff has presented no evidence that Xarelto failed to function as expected. See Austin v. Will-Burt Co., 361 F.3d 862, 872 (5th Cir. 2004).

Defendants further plead, they are entitled to judgment as a matter of law on Plaintiff’s design-defect claim because Plaintiff has made clear that her design-defect claim is based on a theory that Xarelto should have had a different design at the time it was released to the market (Trial Transcript. 141:19–142:11, 144:1–17), and the Court’s preemption decision so requires. See Order & Reasons on Defs.’ Preemption MSJs (Doc. 7110), at 11 (plaintiff’s “pre-market design-defect claims under the MPLA are not preempted”).

Defendants also include in their request for judgment, plaintiffs abandonment of various claims that were not presented at trial or withdrawn before trial, including the “failure to include the Rocket AF trial data” on participant bleeding rates and that Xarelto was designed without a reversal agent.

Mass Tort Nexus will provide additional Dora Mingo trial updates as they become available.

Read More

Proof of Monsanto Collusion to Stop Release of Cancer Link to Roundup Weed Killer

“Another Example of Corporate America and Undue Influence on Official Release of Damaging Scientific Data”

Proof of Monsanto Collusion to Stop Release of Cancer Link to Roundup Weed Killer

Documents released in a lawsuit against Monsanto, see Roundup (Monsanto) MDL 2741 USDC ND California, raised new questions about the company’s efforts to influence public opinion by collusion and steering of data published by mainstream media, various authors and scientific research publications and revealed an internal debate over the safety of the Monsanto’s weed killer Roundup.

The active ingredient is glyphosate, the most common weed killer in the world, used around the world on farm crops and by home gardeners, with the largest market being the USA. While Roundup’s relative safety has been upheld by most US regulators, the Federal Mass Tort Litigation against Monsanto and Roundup,  pending in US District Court in San Francisco continues to raise questions about the company’s practices and the product itself. Thousands of plaintiffs from across the USA have filed suit against Monsanto-Roundup and as details of Monsanto’s attempt to suppress and influence the release of damaging scientific data are released, the number of filed cases will only increase. There has been documented evidence introduced that shows Monsanto influenced high level US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) executives to suppress data and the release of reports that showed Roundup (glyphosate) was dangerous and suspected of causing cancer. Jess Rowland, EPA Regulatory Affairs Manager, stopped the release of a government study that was key in the investigation into the carcinogenic effects of Roundup’s primary ingredient glyphosate by the Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry, see EPA’s Jess Rowland Stops Release of Report on Glyphosate as Cancer Agent. Rowland left the EPA in early 2017 and went on to become a highly paid consultant for Monsanto.

There are numerous documents and media articles that underscore the lengths to which the agrochemical company has taken to protect its image, and the dangers of Roundup.  Documents show that Henry I. Miller, an academic and a vocal proponent of genetically modified crops, asked Monsanto to draft an article for him that largely mirrored one that appeared under his name on Forbes’s website in 2015. Mr. Miller could not be reached for comment.

A similar issue appeared in academic research, when an academic involved in writing research funded by Monsanto, John Acquavella, a former Monsanto employee, appeared to express concern with the process, see Monsanto internal e-mail expressing concern over Roundup , in the 2015 email to a Monsanto executive, “I can’t be part of deceptive authorship on a presentation or publication.” He also said of the way the company was trying to present the authorship: “We call that ghost writing and it is unethical.”

A Monsanto official said the comments were the result of “a complete misunderstanding” that had been “worked out,” while Mr. Acquavella stated via mail that “there was no ghostwriting” and that his comments had been related to an early draft and a question over authorship that was resolved. Even though there are other documents that refute this version of Monsanto’s “official” statement.

Monsanto has been shown to have actively ghostwritten, drafted and offered direction on formal EPA studies, press releases and other “official” documents, introduced in the pending Roundup federal litigation.

The documents also show internal discussions about Roundup’s safety. “If somebody came to me and said they wanted to test Roundup I know how I would react — with serious concern,” one Monsanto scientist wrote in an internal email in 2001.

Monsanto said it was outraged by the documents’ release by a law firm involved in the litigation, although the documents are now public court records, which Monsanto attempted to suppress being introduced into the litigation again and again since the start of the Roundup lawsuits. Brent Wisner, a partner at Baum, Hedlund, Aristei & Goldman, the firm that released the documents, said Monsanto had erred by not filing a required motion seeking continued protection of the documents. Monsanto said no such filing was necessary.

“Now the world gets to see these documents that would otherwise remain secret”, per Mr. Wisner.

To reflect “official corporate collusion and influence”  see Mr. Miller’s 2015 article on Forbes’s website which was an attack on the findings of the International Agency for Research on Cancer, a branch of the World Health Organization that had labeled glyphosate a probable carcinogen, a finding disputed by other regulatory bodies. In the email traffic, Monsanto asked Mr. Miller if he would be interested in writing an article on the topic, and he said, “I would be if I could start from a high-quality draft.”

The article was authored by Mr. Miller and with the assertion that “opinions expressed by Forbes Contributors are their own.” The magazine did not mention any involvement by Monsanto in preparing the article, as most co-authored articles provide.

“That was a collaborative effort, a function of the outrage we were hearing from many people on the attacks on glyphosate,” Mr. Partridge of Monsanto said. “This is not a scientific, peer-reviewed journal. It’s an op-ed we collaborated with him on.”

After disclosure of the stories origin, Forbes removed the story from its website and said that it ended its relationship with Mr. Miller amid the revelations.

“All contributors to Forbes sign an agreement requiring them to disclose any potential conflicts of interest and only publish content that is their own original writing,” stated a Forbes representative. “When it came to our attention that Mr. Miller violated these terms, we removed his blog from Forbes.com and ended our relationship with him.”

Mr. Miller’s work has also appeared in the opinion pages of The New York Times, which reflects the long reach of Monsanto’s attempts to influence public opinion.

“We have never paid Dr. Miller,” said Sam Murphey, a spokesman for Monsanto. “Our scientists have never collaborated with Dr. Miller on his submissions to The New York Times. Our scientists have on occasion collaborated with Dr. Miller on other pieces.” This statement alone reflects the formal relationship between Miller and Monsanto.

James Dao, the Op-Ed editor of The Times, said in a statement, “Op-Ed contributors to The Times must sign a contract requiring them to avoid any conflict of interest, and to disclose any financial interest in the subject matter of their piece.” Miller and Monsanto did not comment on the apparent violation of this Times policy.

The documents also show that the ongoing debate outside Monsanto about glyphosate safety and Roundup, was also taking place within the company.

In a 2002 email, a Monsanto executive said, “What I’ve been hearing from you is that this continues to be the case with these studies — Glyphosate is O.K. but the formulated product (and thus the surfactant) does the damage.”

As to the internal Monsanto views of a causation relationship between cancer and Roundup, where a different Monsanto executive tells others via e-mail see 2003 Monsanto email, “You cannot say that Roundup is not a carcinogen … we have not done the necessary testing on the formulation to make that statement.”

She adds, however, that “we can make that statement about glyphosate and can infer that there is no reason to believe that Roundup would cause cancer.”

The documents also show that A. Wallace Hayes, the former editor of a journal, Food and Chemical Toxicology, has had a contractual relationship with Monsanto. In a further example of Monsanto collusion and influence in 2013, while he was still editor, Mr. Hayes retracted a key study damaging to Monsanto that found that Roundup, and genetically modified corn, could cause cancer and early death in rats.

Mr. Hayes made a statement that he wasn’t under contract with Monsanto at the time of the retraction, however he was compensated by Monsanto for the article after he left the journal. This seems to be a very indirect method of exerting influence on the public opinion via a direct method of paying for favorable treatment and influence by Monsanto.

“Monsanto played no role whatsoever in the decision that was made to retract,” he said. “It was based on input that I got from some very well-respected people, and also my own evaluation.” If this statement is accurate, why would Monsanto pay Mr. Hayes for an article determined to be inaccurate or misleading other than the retraction was of some benefit to Monsanto.

Monsanto has been proven time and time again to be directly responsible for corporate sponsored  collusion, influence peddling in both the public and private sectors and manipulation of data released to the public regarding the now known carcinogenic links of exposure to Monsanto’s primary product, Roundup and the main ingredient glyphosate.

 

Read More