Does Using Talcum Powder Cause Ovarian Cancer?

Does Johnson & Johnson talcum powder cause ovarian cancer?

(Mass Tort Nexus, August 28, 2017)  Johnson & Johnson has been ordered to pay nearly $1 billion in total damages after just 5 trials, alleging its baby powder is causing ovarian cancer, all jury verdicts have been in state courts in Missouri and California, see J&J Talc Trials St. Louis Missouri.

 

 

 

 

 

 

A Los Angeles jury said yes, and last week it ordered Johnson & Johnson (J&J) to pay $417 million to 63-year-old Eva Echeverria, She blamed her terminal illness on Johnson’s Baby Powder, which she used for decades starting at age 11. Her argument was, the company should have warned consumers about the risk, which J&J stated was not necessary and the jury chose to believe Ms. Echeverria and her trial team.

The jury award is the biggest yet against J&J, which has lost 5 of 6 trials involving claims that its baby powder and Shower to Shower powder cause ovarian cancer. The company denies there’s a connection between its products and the disease and quickly said it would appeal the Los Angeles verdict. Lawsuits involving thousands more plaintiffs are pending, see Johnson & Johnson Talc MDL 2738 Briefcase.

Medical industry and cancer research experts divide sharply on talc’s role. Some are convinced the powder is linked to an increased risk of ovarian cancer, while other  including government health experts, say the evidence is lacking.

Amanda Fader, a gynecologic oncologist at Johns Hopkins University who was not involved in the studies states “The scientific body of literature is not compelling at this time to support a strong association between talcum powder and ovarian cancer, let alone to say that any one specific case was associated with powder,” and The American Cancer Society says that studies on talcum powder and ovarian cancer “have been mixed, with some studies reporting a slightly increased risk and some reporting no increase.

Yet Fader and others aren’t ruling out that a link might someday be established. The Food and Drug Administration, which says it has found no link, is doing additional research on the topic. Although, J&J has spent millions of dollars lobbying and influencing all areas of FDA and related public oversight and commentary to prevent and type of link between cancer and talcum powder products from being abbounced, even while competitor talc products sold at Wal-Mart and Dollar Tree post warning labels declaring a possible link.

Talc, a mineral composed of magnesium, silicon, oxygen and hydrogen, is used extensively in cosmetics and personal care products. Women sometimes use talcum powder on their genital areas, sanitary napkins or diaphragms to absorb moisture and odor – contrary to the guidance of most physicians. (Asbestos, linked to lung cancer, was once an impurity in talc, but it has been banned for several decades.)  J&J is notorious for using any means possible to influence scientific data and opinion as well as manipulating research reports and public media commentary by industry experts. The recent California trial showed payments made to previously perceived impartial Science Council members, who were declaring publicly that J&J talcum powder does not pose a cancer risk, the Los Angeles jury did not agree with J&J and other pro-talc defense team members, as over $300 million of the total $417 million judgment was for punitive damages, usually awarded for intentional misconduct, see“New Evidence of Johnson & Johnson Bad Conduct Moved LA Jury to Award $417 Million Talc Verdict”.

Many pediatricians also discourage the use of such powder on babies because the particles can cause breathing problems, according to Jennifer Lowry, a pediatrician and environmental health expert at Children’s Mercy Hospital in Kansas City.

More than 22,000 women in the United States will be diagnosed with ovarian cancer this year, and 14,000 will die. The biggest risk factors, all well established, include a family history of breast or ovarian cancer, mutations in the BRCA genes and age.

The debate over talc began decades ago. In the early 1970s, scientists discovered talc particles in ovarian tumors. In 1982, Harvard researcher Daniel Cramer reported a link between talcum powder and ovarian cancer. His study was followed by several more finding an increased risk of ovarian cancer among regular users of talcum powder. Cramer, who at one point advised J&J to put a warning on its products, has become a frequent expert witness for women suing the company. J&J ignored and suppressed Mr. Cramer’s attempts to show them the study data then publicly declared this research as flawed, which J&J still continues to this day.

His studies and the many others that have found a relationship used a case-control approach. A group of women diagnosed with ovarian cancer and a group without it were asked to recall their past diet and activities, and the results were then compared.

Critics say these kinds of studies have serious drawbacks, particularly “recall bias.” Women may forget what they did or, if diagnosed with cancer, might inadvertently overestimate their use of a suspect substance. People without a serious disease may be less motivated to remember details.

Three other studies – considered cohort studies – did not find any overall link. Unlike the case-control studies, these efforts began with a large group of women who did not have cancer and followed the progress of their health, with participants recording what they were doing in real time. The results of this approach, most scientists say, are stronger because they aren’t subject to the vagaries of memory.

One such study included more than 61,000 women followed for 12 years as part of the National Institutes of Health’s well-respectedWomen’s Health Initiative.

But critics, including Cramer, say these investigations have their own flaws. Because ovarian cancer is so rare, they say, prospective studies don’t always end up with enough cancer cases to detect a potential link between talcum powder and the disease.

And evidence can change as new research becomes available. That explains why the NCI, which uses expert “editorial boards” to vet the voluminous information it puts out for doctors and consumers, has amended its language on talc.

In February 2014, one editorial board reviewed an analysis of several case-control studies that found genital-powder use was associated with a “modest increased risk” of ovarian cancer. The board decided to add the article to the NCI website and noted a weak association between talc and ovarian cancer. It also added a link to the website of the International Agency for Research on Cancer, a World Health Organization agency that had concluded years ago that talcum powder was “possibly carcinogenic,” when used in the genital area.

But a year later, the same board scrutinized the Women’s Health Initiative study and took another look at previous studies. That’s when it changed the wording on the NCI’s site to say the “weight of evidence” did not support a link. The board also removed the IARC information. This all occurred after Johnson & Johnson used lobbying pressure and alleged payments to various affiliated entities to influence the NCI change of formal opinion

The FDA has wrestled with the issue, too. In 2014, it denied a citizens’ petition asking the agency to require a warning label on talcum powder; its review of the scientific literature found no link between the product and cancer, officials said.

But because the agency continues to get “adverse event reports” involving talcum powder, it is taking another look at the evidence and launching its own laboratory research. The summary for one study, funded by the FDA’s Office of Women’s Health, says that “talc’s effects on female genital system tissues have not been adequately investigated.”

In a statement after the Los Angeles verdict, J&J said that “we deeply sympathize with the women and families impacted by this disease.” But, it added, the science “supports the safety of Johnson’s Baby Powder.”

No matter what side they are on, scientists agree that more research – through lab studies with animals or human tissue – is needed to understand how talcum powder could potentially cause cancer. One hypothesis is that talc applied to the genital area can migrate up the vagina to the ovaries, causing chronic inflammation that eventually results in malignancies. But that is only a hypothesis.

Read More

“New Evidence of Johnson & Johnson Bad Conduct Moved LA Jury to Award $417 Million Talc Verdict”

Johnson & Johnson Still Influencing Opinion by Paying Cash to Insiders in Talc Cancer Fight

New Evidence of J&J Bad Conduct Moved LA Jury to Award $417 Million Talc Verdict”

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Why did California jurors enter a verdict in favor of a cancer stricken plaintiff last week for $417 million in the latest trial over Johnson & Johnson’s (J&J) talcum powder and links to ovarian cancer?(see J&J Loses Another Talc Cancer Trial) It seems as if the largest talc cancer trial verdict to date, may have been influenced by new evidence, including an emailed photo that arrived at the start of trial, apparent payments to science industry insiders and a key J&J witness who was sanctioned and discredited for false testimony at a trial in North Carolina, according to one of plaintiffs’ counsel in the case.

The jury, in front of Judge Maren Nelson, Los Angeles Superior Court, (Eva Echeverria vs. Johnson & Johnson, Case No. BC628228), awarded Ms. Echeverria $70 million in non-economic damages and $347 million in punitive damages after finding that Johnson & Johnson failed to warn that its baby powder could cause ovarian cancer. Eva Echeverria was diagnosed with ovarian cancer in 2007, and was unable to testify at trial due to her illness.

Thousands of women have brought lawsuits making similar claims, most of which are in California, Missouri and New Jersey. Plaintiffs’ attorney Allen Smith, of The Smith Law Firm, who has tried all six of the previous trials, five of which were in Missouri. A seventh Missouri trial never went to a jury after the judge granted a mistrial, (see J&J Talc Trial Mistrial Declared After SCOTUS Ruling,)  on the day of the California-Plavix state court jurisdictional opinion. The juries hearing cases linking talcum powder to cancer have awarded four prior plaintiffs’ verdicts, totaling over $300 million, with the highest previous verdict being $110 million and all were awarded in Missouri state courts.

Introduction Of Damaging Evidence Against J&J:

Competitor Warning Labels

The California jury award was tied to three new pieces of evidence that other jurors hadn’t heard before, including evidence that baby powder products made by other companies sold at Walmart and Dollar Tree had warnings on the bottles showing the risks of ovarian cancer. Plaintiffs’ lawyers found out about the labels after a client of Ted Meadows, a partner at Beasley, Allen, et al, in Montgomery, AL, one of the trial attorneys, emailed a photo of a product with a warning label to them just before the Los Angeles trial began. “That was very welcome news to us,” Meadows said. “And the way it played out during the trial, I think it was news to J&J.”

Payments To Industry Insiders

Introduction of evidence that two individuals involved in the Cosmetic Industry Review (CIR), which has deemed talcum powder to be safe, which is data J&J has relied on in prior trials, had received payments from Johnson & Johnson for speeches and other engagements. This damaging information was discovered while cross-examining the group’s former director, Alan Andersen, who was a defense witness, and he was forced to disclose the prior unknown financial relationship of the CIR and Johnson & Johnson.

Bad Science

A major blow to J&J’s defense came when a defense witness, Senior Johnson & Johnson epidemiologist, Dr. Douglas Weed, was revealed to have been sanctioned for perjury in another trial in North Carolina, for lying under oath about whether he retained notes to his expert report, which plaintiffs attorneys were able to show.

“J&J presented these unbelievable and non-credible witnesses on an issue that is very important to our case,” Smith said. “Attempts to influence witnesses and alter facts, along with the fact other companies are warning of the cancer link and have been warning for eight to 12 months now. This was new evidence that proved very compelling to the jury as well as a reflection of J&J’s willingness to manipulate the trial process in their favor”, leading many to wonder what else J&J may have done.

In a post trial statement J&J declined to address the specifics of the case, stating: “We will appeal today’s verdict because we are guided by the science, which supports the safety of Johnson’s baby powder. In April, the National Cancer Institute’s Physician Data Query Editorial Board wrote, ‘The weight of evidence does not support an association between perineal talc exposure and an increased risk of ovarian cancer.’ We are preparing for additional trials in the U.S. and we will continue to defend the safety of Johnson’s baby powder.”

In response, the Plaintiff team stated “The new evidence that came into the California case could play a role in the next talcum powder trial, which is set for Oct. 16 in Missouri, we certainly think it is evidence that should be presented, and we’ll make every attempt to do so,” Ted Meadows said.

Johnson & Johnson Has Thousands More Talc Trials Waiting

J&J faces thousands more federal lawsuits in the recently consolidated MDL 2738, In Re: Johnson & Johnson Talcum Powder Products Liability Litigation supervised by US District Judge Freda L. Wolfson in the US District Court of New Jersey, in addition, there are the ever growing number of state court cases pending in Pennsylvania, New Jersey and Delaware as well as the remaining thousands of cases in the California State Court consolidation, which are captioned Johnson & Johnson Talcum Powder, Case No. JCCP4872.

Evidence of Johnson & Johnson and misconduct both inside and outside the courtroom can do nothing to further prove their continued claims of “no connection between ovarian cancer and use of J&J talcum powder products”, except provide juries with information which will continue to cause massive plaintiff verdicts to be entered across the country as more damaging evidence against J&J comes to light and is introduced at trials.

Read More

Johnson & Johnson Loses Again In First California Talc-Cancer Trial As Jury Awards Plaintiff $417 million

J&J’s Loses Again In First California Talc-Cancer Trial As Jury Award Plaintiffs $417 million

  • Los Angeles jurors decide Johnson & Johnson failed to warn about risks
  • The Eva Echeverria trial is first of 300 cases in California alleging ovarian cancer

“Eva Echeverria v. Johnson & Johnson, number BC628228, in the Superior Court of California for Los Angeles County”

Johnson & Johnson (J&J) found out earlier today, August 21, 2017 that California is no friendlier than Missouri when fighting allegations that its talc powder causes ovarian cancer in women, as a Los Angeles Superior Court awards plaintiff Eva Echeverria $417 million after 3 days of deliberations.

J&J has lost four out of five recent talc cases that went to trial in St. Louis, and is the first trial before a jury in Los Angeles, and is the first case to go to a state-court jury outside Missouri and one of more than 300 similar cases pending in California. This trial follows the US Supreme Court ruling in June 2017 that made it harder for mass tort lawyers to try cases in St. Louis and other cities that have been a destination of choice for litigation against companies that do business nationwide.

The jury verdict shows that J&J is liable for failing to warn Eva Echeverria, 62, about the alleged cancer risks of using its talcum products, which she started using when was 11. She was diagnosed with ovarian cancer in 2007. The Monday morning verdict followed last Wednesday’s closing arguments, with the California jury deliberations coinciding with J&J’s jury trial in the Xarelto blood thinner Mississippi federal trial, which resulted in a defense verdict for J&J on August 18, 2017.  J&J was hoping the Mississippi Xarelto jury verdict was a precursor to the California Talc verdict, which it was not. Ms. Echeverria’s case was chosen as the first bellwether trial due to the onset of final stage ovarian cancer and her failing health, with doubts in some circles that she may not have survived until the trial start.

There are more than 4,800  Talc claims in federal and state U.S. courts accusing J&J, the world’s largest health-care company, of ignoring studies linking its baby powder and Shower to Shower talc products to ovarian cancer and failing to warn customers about the risk, with cases pending in Missouri, New Jersey and California.

In June, the Missouri judge halted the Talc trial there mid-trial in St. Louis, following a U.S. Supreme Court decision, earlier in the day limiting out-of-state plaintiffs joining lawsuits in state court, in the Bristol-Myers (Plavix) state court jurisdictional ruling, Bristol Myers California Plavix Ruling.  Up to then, J&J had been hit with verdicts as high as $110 million by Missouri juries, a favored location for Talc litigation, totaling more than $300 million and J&J, a New Brunswick, New Jersey-based company is appealing these verdicts.

J&J claims the plaintiffs’ allegations aren’t supported by scientific evidence, pointing to a New Jersey state court decision last year tossing out two cases set for trial, due to lack of expert witness supporting evidence.  That judge found evidence linking talc to ovarian cancer was inadequate, however, J&J just happens to be a New jersey based corporation.

The case is Eva Echeverria v. Johnson & Johnson, BC628228, Los Angeles County Superior Court.

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

Daiichi Sankyo Settles Blood Pressure Drug Benicar MDL 2606 for $300 Million

Daiichi Sankyo settles U.S. lawsuits for $300 million over blood pressure drug Benicar in Multidistrict Litigation No. 2606

Daiichi Sankyo on Tuesday said it has agreed to pay up to $300 million to settle 2,300 U.S. cases (see Benicar MDL 2606 Settlement Order of August 1, 2017) accusing the Japanese drugmaker of failing to warn that its blood pressure medication Benicar can cause gastrointestinal illness, that were being heard in MDL 2606 Benicar US District Court of New Jersey see Benicar MDL No. 2606 Mass Tort Nexus Link.

The four olmesartan products at issue in this litigation are: Benicar®, Benicar HCT®, Azor®, and Tribenzor®. With respect to each of these products, Defendants exaggerated their benefits and understated, omitted and/or failed to adequately warn patients and physicians about the risks associated with such products.

The settlement will become finalized if at least 95 percent of all claimants agree, or opt in, Daiichi Sankyo said in a statement. The company said the settlement fund was capped at $300 million. Daiichi Sankyo said it was not admitting liability by settling and that it continues to believe that the Benicar claims were without merit. The settlement relates to the federal actions  in US district court, and excludes a separate Benicar litigation, where another 76 cases in New Jersey State Court, see multicounty litigation in Atlantic County, New Jersey.

“We believe a settlement is in the best interest of all, and will allow us to continue our focus on bringing to market innovative medicines that help people live healthy and meaningful lives,” Glenn Gormley, the group’s executive chairman, said in a statement.

The first lawsuits over Benicar were filed in 2014 and the cases were eventually consolidated in a multidistrict litigation in federal court in New Jersey under MDL 2606 before US District Judge Robert B. Kugler.

The Tokyo-based drugmaker said the agreement would not have a material impact on its financial position, as the settlement is expected to be funded by several of the group’s insurance companies.  As far back as 2012, doctors wrote a total of approximately 10.6 million prescriptions for Benicar, and approximately 1.9 million patients received a dispensed prescription for olmesartan-containing products from U.S. outpatient retail pharmacies in a year, reflecting Benicar as a significant source of income for the company..

Plaintiffs alleged that the company’s blood pressure medication Benicar, along with its sister drugs Benicar HCT, Azor and Tribenzor, did not carry labels that warned of gastrointestinal side effects, such as sprue-like enteropathy, until a decade after it was introduced.

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration approved olmesartan medoxomil, Benicar’s active ingredient, in 2002. But, the agency required Daiichi Sankyo to change its label to include the warning in 2013, when studies showed the drug to be linked to intestinal problems and the FDA issued a warning in July 2013 that olmesartan medoxomil (marketed as Benicar, Benicar HCT, Azor, Tribenzor, and generics) can cause intestinal problems known as sprue-like enteropathy. Plaintiffs, who filed their first suits in 2014, accused the company of inadequately warning about the drug’s risks and misrepresenting its safety.

 

 

Read More

JPML Approves Proton Pump Inhibitor MDL 2757 Assigned to US District Court New Jersey, Judge Claire C. Cecchi on August 2, 2017

JPML Approves Proton Pump Inhibitor MDL 2757 Assigned to US District Court New Jersey, Judge Claire C. Cecchi on August 2, 2017

 The Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation (JPML) has entered an order consolidating the Proton Pump Inhibitor (PPI) MDL 2757 (Nexium, Prevacid, et al) on August 2, 2017 see JPML Consolidation Order of August 2, 2017, assigning PPI MDL 2757 to Judge Claire C. Cecchi, US District Court of New Jersey based on the July 27, 2017 consolidation hearings at the Los Angeles Federal Courthouse. The case is In Re: Proton-Pump Inhibitor Products Liability Litigation [No. II], MDL Docket No. 2757, JPML, where the case filings have significantly increased since the initial JPML hearing on January 26, 2017 in Miami when U.S. District Judge Sarah Vance said at one point during the oral arguments “It just seems to me to be nightmarishly complex” as the primary defense counsel raised concern over the generic makers and related defense issues with so many co-defendants. The JPML ultimately denied the MDL 10 days later to the view that consolidation would be to cumbersome, however due to the large numbers of new suits and the refiling of a Motion to Consolidate, the July 27th Los Angeles hearings have had a different outcome.

The drugs at issue include Prilosec, Nexium, Protonix and Dexilant as well as potential the numerous generic manufacturers. The hearing order lists over 163 cases in 28 federal district courts and a decision will likely come in mid-August. Nevertheless, the judges may try to come up with ways to split up the cases into structures that might be simpler and more efficient or combine all parties. Ideas included single-product or single-defendant MDLs, separating out prescription-only users, or separating out patients who had only used products made and sold by AstraZeneca, which its attorney said is currently named in 100 cases.

 Kidney injuries

In their May 31 motion, Motion to Consolidate Re: PPI Hearing Los Angeles July 27, 2017, the moving plaintiffs seek centralization before U.S. Judge David R. Herndon of the Southern District of Illinois.

The plaintiffs allege that PPIs cause kidney injuries including acute interstitial nephritis, chronic kidney disease and end-stage renal disease. Concerns that these drugs have harmful side effects for users’ kidneys were brought to the U.S. Food and Drug Administration by consumer advocacy group Public Citizen in 2011, and the agency required warnings about risks of acute interstitial nephritis on labels in 2014, according to the patients’ MDL brief.

More recent research led to stronger findings of a connection, including a scientific study published in January 2016 that said PPI use was independently linked to a 20 to 50 percent higher risk of chronic kidney disease. Plaintiffs have also brought allegations of renal failure being caused by the drugs. To date, more than 5,000 PPI cases are under investigation by Plaintiff’s counsel, and more could be added to that number as awareness of the association between PPI use and kidney damage continues to increase. While the drug class first received FDA approval in 1989, serious side effects prompted the FDA in 2014 to require all PPIs to display a warning label that called out the connection to acute interstitial nephritis. The Plaintiff’s brief also mentions several studies that have made a correlation between PPI use and kidney damage during the past 25 years, including a 1992 study by the University of Arizona Health Sciences Center, a 2006 study conducted at the Yale School of Medicine and a 2016 study from John Hopkins published in the Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA).

The plaintiffs note that in January, the JPML denied centralization of PPI cases, but say later significant developments “warrant a second look at consolidation.”

The defendants are AstraZeneca Pharmaceuticals LP, Proctor & Gamble Co., McKesson Corp., Takeda Pharmaceuticals USA Inc., Novartis Pharmaceuticals Corp., Pfizer Inc. and Pfizer subsidiary Wyeth.  The defendants’ responses are due June 27.

Read More

HERNIA MESH AND THE FDA “ARE THEY DOING ENOUGH OR DOING JUST ENOUGH TO JUSTIFY THEIR ROLE?”

 A Guide to Who’s Who in Hernia Mesh and the Documented Problems With Mesh in the USA

Hernia Hernia Mesh ProductsMesh Litigation: Who is the FDA Protecting?

Hernia mesh lawsuits are being filed across the country in state and federal courts. While reviewing pelvic mesh and bladder sling adverse events from thousands of incidents where severe hernia mesh complications have resulted in injuries up to and including death. Patterns began to appear, linking specific injuries with certain hernia mesh products. The investigation uncovered design defects in a large number of hernia mesh products currently on the market.

Over the course of the investigation, and immense amount of information and scientific studies were FDA reports as well as published major medical reviews. A brief, general summary for each hernia mesh study is provided. Links to the full study are also provided for further research; however, due to copyright laws, often only the abstract of the study is available publicly.

Why Learning About Hernia Mesh is Important

The FDA continues to quickly approve untested hernia mesh products, which benefits the medical device manufacturers and hurts the general public. When a product is then shown to be defective, severely injuring thousands nationwide, the FDA is slow to take any action. The manufacturers of hernia mesh know of the life-threatening complications their products can cause, but they don’t warn the public or surgeons. Educate yourself on the dangers of hernia mesh and warn those you know.

There are over 100,000 hernia meshes implanted every year in the United States. Many of the most dangerous hernia meshes remain on the market and have not been recalled by the FDA. Bowel obstructions and severe infections are common complications related to hernia mesh.

What is the FDA’s Opinion on Hernia Mesh?

In April of 2016 the FDA put out an article on hernia surgical mesh implants. The following excerpt demonstrates just how out of touch the FDA is with how dangerous current hernia mesh products are.

“Many complications related to hernia repair with surgical mesh that have been reported to the FDA have been associated with recalled mesh products that are no longer on the market. Pain, infection, recurrence, adhesion, obstruction, and perforation are the most common complications associated with recalled mesh. In the FDA’s analysis of medical adverse event reports to the FDA, recalled mesh products were the main cause of bowel perforation and obstruction complications.”

Just one month later, the manufacturer of the Physiomesh, Ethicon a subsidiary of Johnson and Johnson, removed the hernia mesh due to high rates of complications. Currently, the FDA’s website still has no information on the Physiomesh recall. Ethicon continues to deny that the Physiomesh was subject to a hernia mesh recall, but does admit that they withdrew the product from the market. To date, there have been very few hernia mesh products actually recalled. The majority of complaints that were reviewed are products that have not yet been recalled, or have simply been “pulled from the market.”

Is the FDA Turning a Blind Eye to the Complications Caused by Defective Hernia Meshes?

It seems like an outrageous proposition, until you read some of the adverse event reports that physicians and medical device sales representatives have reported to the FDA. Repeatedly, the FDA has been alerted to various defects related to specific hernia meshes that are resulting in life-changing complications, yet no action has been taken. To highlight how absurd it is that the FDA hasn’t taken action on various hernia mesh products, the Hollis Law Firm created a Parietex ProGrip lawsuit page and a Parietex Composite lawsuit page. Both pages highlight FDA adverse event reports that should have made it obvious to the FDA why patients were experiencing specific complications with certain hernia mesh products. Shortly after the two pages went live, the FDA’s entire online adverse event database went down. We’re just getting started though. Now that the FDA’s online adverse event database is back up, we will be making similar updates to every hernia mesh subpage

Why Does Hernia Mesh Cause So Many Complications?

Polypropylene before implantation

What causes the complications can vary depending on the hernia mesh product. Many hernia mesh products contain a type of plastic known as polypropylene, the same material that is used to make many types of pelvic mesh and bladder slings. Polypropylene is also used to make a wide variety of non-medical devices, such as fishing line and soda bottles. Polypropylene is utilized to make so many commercial products for one main reason, it’s dirt cheap. Here is a Polypropylene Material Safety Data Sheet (MSDS) for a type of polypropylene used in many hernia mesh products. The MSDS notes “Prohibited Uses: Applications involving permanent implantation into the body.” However, the manufacturers of many hernia mesh products continue to use polypropylene and deny that polypropylene degrades and contracts.

Polypropylene 18 months after implantation

Should Hernia Mesh Ever Be Used?

Yes, there are times when mesh needs to be utilized to repair a hernia. The larger a hernia is, the more likely a mesh is needed. If a mesh is required to repair the hernia, there are more than 50 different hernia mesh products to choose from. Various manufacturers utilize a wide range of materials to make their hernia meshes. These materials range from plastics to gels to pig skins. Later in this article, we will cover some of the most dangerous types of hernia mesh. Additionally, certain hernias are easier to fix without using mesh. Inguinal hernias are typically smaller and can be repaired without mesh by a skilled surgeon. The unnecessary use of hernia mesh to repair inguinal hernias has resulted in thousands of patients developing debilitating pain.

Alternatives to Hernia Mesh

  • Shouldice Repair: A two layer suture only hernia repair utilizing the patient’s fascia and tendon.
  • McVay Repair: Abdominal tendons are sutured to the inguinal ligament.
  • Bassini Repair: A suture inguinal hernia repair that preserves the spermatic cord.
  • Desarda Repair: A suture only repair using multiple layers of fascia.

Shouldice Repair

Long before hernia mesh was utilized to repair hernias, surgeons used the shouldice technique to repair hernias. The shouldice technique originated from the Shouldice Hospital in Ontario, Canada, where the technique is still favored to this day. For over 70 years, the Shouldice Hospital has maintained a success rate of 99.5% on primary inguinal hernia repairs. In most cases, general anesthesia is not even necessary to perform the shouldice repair. Typically local anesthetics, pain medication, sutures and a sedative is all that is required. Not having to rely on general anesthesia greatly reduces the risk associated with any surgery. It is time for the surgeons in the United States to start learning the Shouldice technique again while in residency.

When Should Hernia Mesh Never Be Used?

Smaller hernias, such as hernias caused by laparoscopic surgery, don’t require mesh to repair. Small hernias can easily be repaired with sutures by an experienced surgeon. The difficulty with hernias is they are very difficult to permanently repair. There is a high rate of hernia recurrence, both with sutures and with mesh. When sutures fail and the hernia comes back, the surgeon can usually try to stitch the hernia back up. When a mesh fails and the hernia comes back, many severe complications can occur. Also, the hernia is usually much larger after mesh failure. Abdominal tissue and muscle typically adheres to the mesh and must be removed with it.

Types of Hernias

  • Incisional: At an old surgical incision.
  • Umbilical: Near the belly button.
  • Inguinal: Groin.
  • Femoral: High in the thigh.
  • Recurrent: Previous hernia site.
  • Bilateral: Both left and right sides

How do the Manufacturers Convince Surgeons to Use Hernia Mesh?

The manufacturers of hernia mesh products funded studies to demonstrate that there was a lower rate of hernia recurrence when hernia mesh was utilized. These studies were lacking in many ways, such as the length of time that patients were monitored after mesh implantation and what were considered “normal complications.”  Researchers have frequently talked to victims that were implanted with mesh 10 or 15 years ago and have just recently suffered from the mesh eroding into their bowels. Hernia recurrences and complications that happen 10 years later aren’t captured by the studies.

How Bad are Hernia Mesh Complications?

Unlike sutures, which have relatively few and minor possible complications, hernia mesh frequently causes life-threatening complications. Hernia mesh can erode into the bowel, requiring multiple additional surgeries, weeks of hospitalization, partial bowel removal, colostomies, and more. The mesh failure frequently causes patients to experience a systemic infection. We recently observed high rates of dental infections associated with mesh failure. Many victims report all of their teeth suddenly rotting out. Even if there is a slightly lower rate of hernia recurrence when mesh is used, it doesn’t justify the risk of life-threatening complications.

 Hernia Mesh Injuries and Complications

Hernia mesh is used to repair both ventral hernias and inguinal hernias. Various injuries and complications can occur depending on what part of the body the mesh is placed. A coated hernia mesh is also more likely to cause injuries such as infection than a non-coated hernia mesh. The follow is a list of the array of complications we observed:

  • Infection, including sepsis. An infected hernia mesh almost always requires removal.
  • Adhesions form to connect the bowel to the hernia mesh. Adhesions frequently form when ventral hernias are repaired with a coated mesh.
  • Bowel Obstruction caused by adhesion formation. Evidenced by a change in bowel habits or the inability to defecate.
  • Abdominal Pain is a sign of possible adhesion formation, a bowel obstruction, infection, or nerve damage.
  • Rashes are commonly observed in association with hernia meshes such as the C-Qur V-Patch and Ventralex ST.
  • Leg, Groin, and Testicular Pain are all common to inguinal hernias repaired with mesh. This pain can be debilitating.
  • Pain with Sex (Dyspareunia) caused from the mesh used to repair an inguinal hernia attaching to the spermatic cord.
  • Testicle Removal may be necessary if the mesh erodes far enough into the spermatic cord.
  • Diarrhea can be an early symptom of the mesh attaching to the bowel.
  • Constipation can be a sign of a bowel obstruction. You should consult a doctor if your constipation persist for several days.
  • Nausea can be an additional sign of adhesions to the bowel and stomach.
  • Seroma is a fluid capsule surrounding the mesh. Seromas can be present with and without infection.
  • Fistula. An abnormal tunnel between two structures. Our attorneys observe many fistulas connecting to the bowel, which are associated with infections.
  • Dental Problems. Medical reviewers have observed a large number of patients who have lost their teeth after a hernia mesh infection.
  • Autoimmune Disorders. An alarming number of our patients have developed autoimmune disorders after being implanted with a pelvic or hernia mesh.
  • Neurological Changes. Several different patients that have been implanted with the same type of mesh have been diagnosed with unexplained neurological changes on a CT scan.
  • Severe Headache. Typically a sign of a larger problem, such as an infection.
  • Fever. Associated with both an autoimmune response to the mesh and infection.
  • Renal Failure has been observed in those implanted with large coated meshes. The coatings are absorbable and put a great deal of strain on the kidneys.
  • Liver Abnormalities have also been documented in those implanted with coated hernia meshes. The liver is also responsible for cleansing the body.
  • Joint Aches and Pain can be caused by increased systemic inflammation due to infection and an autoimmune reaction to the mesh.
  • Abnormal Sweating can be related to an autoimmune response or to an infection.
  • Meshoma is the migration, contracture, or bunching-up of an artificial mesh. Meshomas become hard, tumor-like bodies.

Too Many Lawyers and Surgeons Rely on Out of Date Hernia Mesh Studies

Polypropylene can cause damage to the surface of any organ it is touching. Old literature and scientific studies found that polypropylene was safe for hernia repair, and only caused severe complications when used as a pelvic mesh. This is why most attorneys have, and still refuse to take hernia mesh cases. The old literature and scientific studies are no longer valid though. Over time, surgeons began to insert and secure hernia mesh via laparoscopic procedures. When a hernia is repaired with mesh laparoscopically, some surgeons insert the mesh deeper into the abdominal cavity, which causes the mesh to come in contact with the bowel. When polypropylene comes in direct contact with the bowels, severe complications typically arise. Due to the now widespread utilization of laparoscopic intraperitoneal hernia repair with mesh, the old scientific studies are no longer valid.

Why Do So Many Hernia Mesh Products Have Coatings Now?

As intraperitoneal laparoscopic hernia repair surgeries with mesh increased, so did the severe complications. The hernia mesh manufacturers scrambled to create a new hernia mesh that would fix the problem polypropylene was causing. However, any material other than polypropylene would have to undergo FDA Pre-Market Approval (PMA). In order to gain PMA status (which also makes the company immune from lawsuits), the company would have to conduct pre-clinical studies to prove that the hernia mesh was safe. Instead, the manufacturers began to apply various types of coatings to the mesh. The idea was that the coating would create a layer between the bowel and the polypropylene. Most of these coatings are intended to be absorbed by the body over a period of months to years.

Differences in Mesh Placement

  • Overlay– The hernia mesh is placed between the skin/subcutaneous tissue and the rectus abdominis. Mesh is easiest to remove when it is placed in the overlay position.
  • Inlay– The hernia mesh is placed between layers of the rectus abdominis.
  • Underlay– The hernia mesh is placed between the rectus abdominis and the peritoneum. The hernia mesh has a higher chance of attaching to the patients underlying organs when placed in the underlay position.

Composite Mesh: The Most Dangerous Type of Hernia Mesh

Any mesh with a coating is known as a composite mesh. Most of the manufacturers promote the meshes coating as a “barrier” and instruct surgeons to use the coating as a barrier. The FDA requires any “barrier” type of medical device to undergo Pre-Market Approval and pre-clinical studies to ensure the device’s safety. Instead of conducting safety studies, companies just told the FDA that they wouldn’t promote their hernia mesh as a “barrier.” A majority of the meshes currently being used in hernia repair are untested composite meshes that have only been on the market for a few years. There is currently no reliable data on these hernia mesh products. Medical reviewers are currently noticing a very high rate of complications associated with hernia meshes that are coated.

Big Profits Making Composite Mesh

Due to the complications that polypropylene was causing when it came in direct contact with the bowel, the demand for composite hernia mesh skyrocketed. Any company with a composite mesh could rapidly increase its nationwide market share. Mesh products were already one of the most profitable medical devices a company could manufacture, many making over $100,000,000 a year! A composite mesh also sells for approximately 15 – 20 times more than an uncoated polypropylene mesh. Suddenly, every device manufacturer rushed to get a composite mesh on the market. Many companies created and sold several different types of composite hernia mesh at the same time. If one type of composite mesh caused too many side effects, the company would simply quit manufacturing that particular composite mesh. There are currently over 350,000 hernia repairs in the United States each year.

Current Hernia Mesh Lawsuits and Investigations

There are many different hernia mesh products available, many of which are manufactured by different medical device companies. The strengths and weaknesses of a hernia mesh lawsuit are in part determined by which company manufactured the hernia mesh and the exact mesh that was utilized. Below is a list of products that have received a large number of complaints. Bookmark this page and check back soon, this list is growing and we continue to add more unique content every week!

Ethicon – Johnson & Johnson

Proceed Hernia Mesh

The Proceed hernia mesh came to market in 2003. The Proceed is a light-weight hernia mesh with an Oxidized Regenerated Cellulose (ORC) fabric covering the polypropylene. The cellulose is adhered to the polypropylene with polydioxanone (PDS). Ethicon touts the Proceed’s barrier as supporting “safe and comfortable healing.” Ethicon has previously issued limited recalls on the Proceed hernia mesh, because of the cellulose layer separating from the polypropylene and increasing the risk of bowel complications. The Proceed hernia mesh continues to delaminate and should be permanently recalled. Physicians have submitted 100’s of adverse event reports to the FDA and Johnson & Johnson regarding the Proceed hernia mesh being defective and injuring patients.

Physiomesh

The Physiomesh was withdrawn from the market in May of 2016. Ethicon maintains that they did not recall the Physiomesh. The Physiomesh was a composite hernia mesh. Multiple studies revealed that Ethicon’s Physiomesh had high rates of complications, including subsequent hernias and additional surgeries. Ethicon admitted that they’re unable to determine why the Physiomesh is defective, or how to decrease complications for those who had a Physiomesh implanted. Part of the problem was likely that the Physiomesh had a coating on each side of the mesh. The coating prevented the Physiomesh from properly incorporating with the host tissue. Prior to removing (not recalling) the Physiomesh from the market, Ethicon created a new hernia mesh called Physiomesh Open.

Prolene Hernia System

The Prolene Hernia System (PHS) was introduced to the market in 1997. The Prolene Hernia System is similar to polypropylene mesh plugs with a polypropylene onlay. In fact, the Prolene Hernia System cites Bard’s Perfix plug as a predicate device. Our hernia mesh lawyers have observed similar complications associated with the Prolene Hernia System and the Perfix plug. The Prolene Hernia System utilizes heavy-weight polypropylene. In 2007, Ethicon came out with the Ultrapro Hernia System, a light-weight version of the Prolene Hernia System. Light-weight polypropylene was believed to cause less complications than heavy-weight polypropylene. Injuries associated with the PHS include debilitating pain, nerve damage, and sexual dysfunction necessitating testicle removal.

Covidien – Medtronic

Parietex

The Parietex hernia mesh was Covidien’s first polyester hernia mesh. The Parietex originally came to the market in 1999 as a heavy-weight polyester mesh. The original Parietex caused many problems similar to polypropylene based hernia meshes, such as adhesions, infections, and bowel complications. Like polypropylene, polyester also shrinks and contracts to a significant degree after it is implanted in the body. As the Parietex contracts, tension increases and the mesh has a tendency to tear where the tacks or sutures were used to secure it. Severe pain and a recurrence of the hernia typically result when the Parietex mesh rips apart. After the Parietex detaches it can migrate to other parts of the body.

Parietex Composite Mesh

The Parietex Composite (PCO) mesh is composed of a polyester base with a resorbable collagen barrier. The resorbable collagen barrier is intended to prevent the polyester base from adhering to the patient’s bowel. Covidien touts the Parietex as a unique material that “works with the body’s natural systems.” However, many of our clients would disagree. The collagen layer of the Parietex Composite hernia mesh is very thin and delicate. The collagen layer disappears quickly after implantation and does little to nothing to protect the bowel and underlying organs from the polyester base. Recently, Covidien came out with the Parietex Optimized Composite Mesh in an attempt to fix the problems associated with the collagen layer. The hernia mesh lawyers at the Hollis Law Firm frequently see severe adhesions, bowel obstructions, and infections associated with the Parietex Composite hernia mesh. Additionally, like the original Parietex, the Parietex Composite tears easily on sutures or tacks as it begins to contract post implantation.

Parietex ProGrip / Parietex Plug and Patch System

The Parietex ProGrip and the Parietex Plug and Patch System are made from polyester weaved together with a partially semi-resorbable polylactic acid (PLA) layer. The Parietex ProGrip is a “self-fixating” mesh because it has thousands of hooks that are intended to keep the mesh in place. However, the thousands of hooks also cause patients to experience severe pain and make the hernia mesh nearly impossible to remove. When the Parietex ProGrip fails and complications result, multiple surgeries are usually required to remove the underlying problem: the defective Parietex ProGrip hernia mesh. Covidien was recently acquired by Medtronic for nearly $50 billion. Covidien is also one of many defendant mesh manufacturers in the pelvic mesh litigation

Atrium – Maquet – Getinge Group

C-Qur Hernia Mesh

The C-Qur is a composite hernia mesh that came to market in 2006, and was initially marketed by Atrium Medical Corporation. Maquet, a subsidiary of the Getinge Group, acquired Atrium in 2011 and now manufactures the C-Qur hernia mesh. The FDA has issued several warnings letters and even sued Atrium Medical Corporation for violations. Recently, the FDA shut down one of Atrium’s facilities that manufactured the C-Qur hernia mesh. Atrium has only issued recalls on the C-Qur’s packaging, not on the actual C-Qur hernia mesh itself.

The C-Qur hernia mesh has an Omega-3 Fatty Acid coating that causes severe allergic reactions. The C-Qur hernia mesh is also associated with life-threatening systemic infections. Removing the C-Qur mesh is extremely difficult and can result in further injury. The C-Qur hernia mesh remains on the market, even as lawsuits continue to mount. Our hernia mesh recall lawyers continue to receive frequent complaints related to the C-Qur hernia mesh.

Davol – C.R. Bard

Kugel Hernia Mesh

The Kugel hernia mesh was one of first and most well known hernia meshes to be recalled. C.R. Bard recalled several lots of the Kugel hernia patch in 2005, 2006 and 2007. The Kugel hernia mesh patch has a ring in the middle of the mesh to help it keep it’s shape. Multiple lots of the Kugel hernia mesh were recalled due to a large number of reported ring breaks. Many patients have suffered bowel perforations as a result of the inner ring of the Kugel hernia patch breaking. Davol only recalled limited lots of the Kugel, claiming that certain lots had defective rings. Davol continues selling the Kugel hernia mesh to this day. The real problem with the Kugel hernia mesh is that it’s made of polypropylene, which shrinks over time. As the polypropylene mesh shrinks, more and more force is applied to the ring. Eventually, the ring breaks due to the shrinkage of the polypropylene.

3DMax

The 3DMax is a bare heavy-weight polypropylene mesh used to treat inguinal hernias. In 2008, Bard released a light-weight version of the 3DMax called the 3DMax light. Patients nationwide have experienced severe, debilitating pain after being implanted with the Bard 3DMax mesh. The 3DMax mesh can erode through soft tissue and then attach to the spermatic cord in men, causing severe sexual dysfunction and testicle pain. Once the mesh is attached to the spermatic cord, there is a risk of losing the testicle when removing the mesh. The 3DMax is curved, and is intended to be implanted without any sutures or tacks. Our hernia mesh attorneys have identified many cases where the Bard 3DMax has folded over upon itself and migrated inside the patient. As can be seen in the picture, the outer sealed edge of the 3DMax also has a tendency to easily break and tear. The sealed edge is intended to help the 3DMax maintain its shape. Bard’s 3DMax simply is not fit for permanent, life-long human implantation.

PerFix Plug

The PerFix Plug is a bare polypropylene mesh used to treat inguinal hernias. The PerFix Plug looks like a double layer dart with an overlay patch. The polypropylene of the PerFix Plug has been observed to come unwoven over time. Many experience severe pain and difficultly exercising and even walking after being implanted with the Bard PerFix Plug. The PerFix Plug is another hernia mesh that has caused many men to loose a testicle. The PerFix Plug is not necessary to repair an inguinal hernia.

Ventralex ST Hernia Mesh (Sepramesh)

In 2007, Bard bought the license to Sepramesh from Sanofi Genzyme. The Sepramesh was intended to “Separate the polypropylene from the bowel.” Bard then created the Ventralex ST hernia mesh by combining the Sepramesh and the Kugel mesh. Bard recalled several lots of the Kugel hernia mesh approximately a decade ago. Bard has yet to issue a recall on any lot of the Ventralex ST hernia mesh.Bard also claims that the Ventralex ST hernia mesh’s coating is similar to the coating used on the C-Qur hernia mesh. Like with the C-Qur, researchers are seeing severe inflammatory reactions, infections, and adhesions related to the Ventralex ST. Please note that Sepramesh, Ventrio ST and Ventralight ST are also included in the Ventralex ST lawsuit.

Scientific Articles on Hernia Mesh

The below articles are on hernia mesh in general. Each hernia mesh subpage also contains additional case specific scientific articles.

August 2016: Evaluation of Long-Term Surgical Site Occurrences in Ventral Hernia Repair: Implications of Preoperative Site Independent MRSA Infection.

632 patients were studied for two years after being implanted with hernia mesh. 31% experienced complications within just two years. Complications included cellulitis, necrosis, nonhealing wound, seroma, hematoma, dehiscence, and fistula. Patients with a preoperative MRSA+ infection from any site (urine, blood, surgical site), might be at an elevated risk for hernia mesh complications.

August 2016: Oral, Intestinal, and Skin Bacteria in Ventral Hernia Mesh Implants.

36 patients with failed hernia mesh were studied. All participants were found to have gingivitis and 33% had infected gums and teeth. Oral bacteria was discovered on 43% of explanted hernia mesh. The study discusses the difficulty in knowing the real rate of hernia mesh infections, due to lack of standardized criteria to define infection, lack of follow-up exams, and lack of intervention when complications arise. It notes that hernia mesh infection is the most common reason for mesh removal.

June 2016: Sepramesh and Postoperative Peritoneal Adhesions in a Rat Model.

The study notes that “postoperative peritoneal adhesions occurred at the extremities of the mesh, where there was close contact between the polypropylene and viscera, or where the fixation suture was placed.”

August 2015: Previous Methicillin-Resistant Staphylococcus Aureus Infection Independent of Body Site Increases Odds of Surgical Site Infection after Ventral Hernia Repair.

768 patients underwent hernia repair. 10% experienced a hernia mesh infection. 33% of patients with a preoperative MRSA+ infection experienced a hernia mesh infection.

May 2014: Comparison of Outcomes of Synthetic Mesh vs Suture Repair of Elective Primary Ventral Herniorrhaphy: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

637 hernia mesh repairs and 1145 suture repairs were compared. Hernia mesh repair was associated with a slightly lower rate of recurrence, but a higher rate of severe complications. The authors admit that “further high-quality studies are necessary to determine whether suture or mesh repair leads to improved outcomes for primary ventral hernias.”

November 2013: Coated Meshes for Hernia Repair Provide Comparable Intraperitoneal Adhesion Prevention.

Uncoated polypropylene was compared to various types of coated polypropylene placed intraperitonally via laparoscopic procedure. The uncoated polypropylene hernia mesh resulted in significantly more adhesions.

October 2013: Biologic Meshes are Not Superior to Synthetic Meshes in Ventral Hernia Repair: An Experimental Study with Long-Term Follow-Up Evaluation.

The study notes that “In laparoscopic incisional hernia repair, direct contact between the prosthesis and the abdominal viscera is inevitable, which may lead to an inflammatory reaction resulting in abdominal adhesion formation.” The authors advise additional research is necessary, and to be wary of short-term experimental results on laparoscopically placed hernia mesh.

October 2013: Intra Peritoneal Polypropylene Mesh and Newer Meshes in Ventral Hernia Repair: What EBM Says?

The authors are concerned about using polypropylene mesh (PPM) for laparoscopic hernia repair. They question if paying 15-20 times more for a composite mesh is worth it. The study notes “Complications of intraperitoneal PPM (adhesions, infection, intestinal fistulization, sinus formation, seroma and recurrence) can occur with the newer mesh also. There is no statistically significant difference in the incidence of these complications between these meshes.”

August 2012: Ventral Hernia Repair with Synthetic, Composite, and Biologic Mesh: Characteristics, Indications, and Infection Profile.

The study notes that polypropylene “is unsuitable for intra-abdominal placement because of its tendency to induce bowel adhesions.”

August 2011:  Complications of Mesh Devices for Intraperitoneal Umbilical Hernia Repair: A Word of Caution.

The surgeons note experiencing serious complications in several patients implanted with a composite mesh. Injuries included small bowel resections and mesh removal. The study notes “We think that, if preperitoneal deployment of such mesh devices is possible, this should be the preferred position, notwithstanding the fact that these meshes have a dual layer. There is a complete lack of convincing data on these mesh devices in the medical literature. No long-term data have been published, and, for three of the four mesh devices available, no publications on their use in humans were found.”

July 2011: Mesh Infection in Ventral Incisional Hernia Repair: Incidence, Contributing Factors, and Treatment.

The study discusses the need for a better identification, classification and reporting systems for hernia mesh infections. It notes part of the difficulty is that hernia mesh implants have a tendency to remain dormant for long periods of time. It can take years before a hernia mesh infection is identified.

January 2010: Oral Biofilms: Emerging Concepts in Microbial Ecology.

The overall health and biology of an individual is closely linked to which oral biofilms develop.

June 2009: The Problem of Mesh Shrinkage in Laparoscopic Incisional Hernia Repair. 

Laparoscopic hernia repair requires expanding the abdomen with approximately 3 liters of gas. The surface area of the abdominal wall is stretched by about 80% during laparoscopic repair. Surgeons must anticipate significant mesh shrinkage in laparoscopic hernia repair. Mesh shrinkage remains one of the unsolved problems of laparoscopic incisional hernia repair.

How Does the FDA Learn About Hernia Mesh Complications?

If a hernia mesh fails within a few years and the same surgeon that implanted the mesh removes the mesh, the surgeon will sometimes report the complication to the manufacturer. It is then the manufacturers duty to determine if the complication warrants notifying the FDA. Through our investigations, we uncovered that many manufacturers fail to report adverse events related to hernia mesh to the FDA. Surgeons will also occasionally file adverse event reports directly to the FDA, but the process is very time consuming. As a result, the FDA is only aware of a very small percentage of total hernia mesh complications. The manufacturers of hernia mesh then cite to low rates of hernia mesh complications reported to the FDA as evidence that hernia mesh is safe!

Are There Other Ways to Report Hernia Mesh Complications to the FDA?

If you have suffered hernia mesh complications, you can alert the FDA through a MedWatch Report. You can also alert the FDA by filing a hernia mesh lawsuit against the manufacturer of the mesh. When a manufacturer is notified of a pending hernia mesh lawsuit, the manufacturer must report the basis of the hernia mesh lawsuit to the FDA. Medical device companies are allowed too much discretion on if they have to notify the FDA when a surgeon reports a hernia mesh adverse event. The medical device companies do not have discretion on reporting a hernia mesh lawsuit to the FDA. The companies must report every single hernia mesh lawsuit to the FDA.

Read More

TESTOSTERONE MDL 2545 “ANDROGEL” JURY RETURNS $150 MILLION VERDICT IN PUNITIVE DAMAGES FOR “FALSE MARKETING” AGAINST ABBVIE WHILE FINDING NO FAULT IN “HEART ATTACK” CLAIMS

On July 24, a jury in Chicago federal court found in favor of plaintiff Jesse Mitchell, ordering drugmaker AbbVie to pay $150 million in damages for allegedly falsely marketing the benefits of its Androgel testosterone therapy drug, while not holding the company liable for a heart attack suffered by the plaintiff.  This was the second of bellwether trials in a massive class action involving thousands of claims against AbbVie and other drugmakers, including Eli Lilly and GlaxoSmithKline. The thousands of complaints have been consolidated by the country’s federal courts, and are being heard as a multi-district litigation Testosterone MDL 2545 AbbVie “Androgel” Briefcase,  under U.S. District Court Judge Matthew Kennelly in U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois in Chicago.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Lawsuits dating to 2014, allege the testosterone replacement drugs were not only useless, but actually harmful, even though approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration to treat testosterone deficiency, the claims allege the companies also falsely marketed the drugs to treat a variety of other conditions, including diabetes, AIDS, cancer, depression and anxiety. The lawsuits further allege the drugmakers invented a nonexistent condition called “andropause” or “low T,” which could be treated by testosterone replacement.

However, plaintiffs claim the drugs are not only ineffective for these off-label uses, but they increase the risk of heart attack, blood clots and stroke.

Judge Kennelly selected eight of the cases to move forward to trial. The first bellwether trial, in which plaintiff Jeffrey Konrad, claimed Androgel caused a heart attack, ended in a mistrial in June.

This trial where Mr. Mitchell, of Oregon, similarly asserted the drug had caused his heart attack, proceeded to the jury in July and after days of testimony and arguments in court, however, the jury refused to find AbbVie responsible for Mitchell’s condition.

The jury did say they believed AbbVie had falsely misrepresented the benefits of its testosterone therapy drug to Mitchell, and ordered the company to pay punitive damages of at least $150 million.

A lawyer for Mitchell did not immediately respond to a request for comment from the Cook County Record on Monday.

In a brief emailed statement, a spokesperson for AbbVie noted “the jury found that Androgel did not cause any damage.”

“We expect the punitive damage award will not stand,” the statement said.

The verdict came over the strong objections of AbbVie, whose lawyers argued in court that they should not be held responsible for Mitchell’s condition or use of the drug.

In a motion for judgment filed July 17, the company noted even a doctor called by Mitchell’s attorneys conceded Mitchell was already at high risk for cardiac disease, without ever taking Androgel, because of his “several cardiac risk factors … including a 34-year smoking history, high blood pressure, high cholesterol, high triglycerides, obesity, a family history of heart disease, and lack of exercise.”

AbbVie also argued the jury could not find it had failed to warn of the risks of Androgel under federal rules and the company claimed the evidence demonstrated Mitchell had never heard of Androgel or any of its alleged “false claims” before his doctor prescribed it for him. And, AbbVie argued, Mitchell’s doctor “relied on his own training, experience and medical judgment, rather than anything said by (AbbVie), when making treatment decisions for Mr. Mitchell.”

“Finally, any suggestion that (Mitchell’s doctor) was somehow deceived or misled by (AbbVie’s) risk information is belied by the fact that he warned Mr. Mitchell of the potential cardiovascular risks,” with Judge Kennelly taking the motion “under advisement” on Friday, July 21 and subsequently denied. Resulting in the 2nd recent verdict against AbbVie, after having been found liable in the Depakote birth defect trial where the Illinois jury awarded $15 million to plaintiff Christine Raquel, after having been prescribed Depakote for bipolar depression.

Jesse Mitchell was represented the firms of Levin Papantonio Thomas Mitchell Rafferty & Proctor, of Pensacola, Fla.; the Alvarez Law Firm, of Coral Gables, Fla.; Seeger Weiss, of New York; Goldberg & Osborne, of Tucson, Ariz.; Heard Robins Cloud, of Santa Monica, Calif.; and Douglas & London, of New York.

AbbVie was defended by the firm of Dechert LLP, of Princeton, N.J.

Organizations Listed:

AbbVie
1 N Waukegan Rd
Lake Bluff, IL 60044

U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois
219 S Dearborn St
Chicago, IL 60604

Read More

Beware of Green Dot Debit Card Scam Targeting Yaz Settlement Recipients

Some women who have suffered real injuries as a result of using Yaz, Yasmin, Gianvi and Ocella birth control are being injured again as con men who claim to be from a settlement center are inducing women to send money so they can receive their settlement funds back.

According to Attorney Jason T. Brown, of The JTB Law Group, LLC in Jersey City, NJ, if you ever have to send money to receive money it is a scam. No attorney or law firm or anyone associated with the Yaz Lawsuit and Yasmin Litigation will ever ask anyone to send in money before receiving settlement funds. If someone is approached by anyone in any context asking to send in money, take down all their information, but do not give out any information about yourself over the phone.

$1.4 billion settlements

In 2013, Bayer paid out $1.4 billion in Yaz lawsuit settlements. Attorney Brown, a former FBI Special Agent said, “If you have a lawyer, contact them about your case. If someone asks you to send money before you can receive money it is probably a scam. Contact law enforcement to issue a police report. The sooner the bad people are caught the better for everyone.”

Reloadable debit cards- especially the top-selling, legitimate Green Dot cards — and the new money moving method of choice for scammers.

According to a recent report from Fox News Investigative Reporter Beau Berman in Hartford, CT, once money is sent to these people, they will keep trying to call to get more money.

Some of the defining characteristics of the alleged scam seem to be targeting women who have allegedly been injured by Yaz, Yasmin or Ocella and possibly gaining information from the public filings in court.

The only injuries that lawyers are currently pursuing are embolic events such as:

  • Deep vein thrombosis
  • Pulmonary embolism
  • Stroke
  • Heart attack and
  • Death from Yaz and other fourth generation hormones.

Injuries outside of this range are unlikely to qualify for any settlement. Settlements for women who have allegedly endured a Yaz DVT, Yaz PE, Yaz Death, Yasmin DVT, Yasmin PE, Yasmin Death and Ocella DVT, Ocella PE, or Yaz Death have exceeded over $1 billion according to Page 64 of Bayer’s Quarterly Report.

Popular with Millennials

The debit cards are popular with Millennials, according to Thea Garon of the Center for Financial Services Information manager, especially among millennials. She goes on to suggest that millennials and other generational members will see the lines blur between traditional checking accounts and prepaid debit cards.

The alleged scammers then say they have $7,500 Yaz settlement money in exchange for money sent through a green dot money pack card.

No attorney should make a client engage in such actions to receive settlement funds. All attorneys will go over the settlement process and will pay funds in injury matters if successful.

Consumer rights attorney Jason T. Brown stated, “In almost any and every context if someone owes you money, you shouldn’t have to send money to receive money. If you haven’t obtained counsel for your Yasmin lawsuit injuries, you should vet your counsel by going to sites like AVVO and Martindale-Hubbell which have client and peer reviews and issue a ranking based on a matrix of factors.”

It’s a shame that crime permeates through every walk of life, but it’s particularly troubling that criminals prey on women who have already been allegedly victimized by bad birth control side effects. Attorney Brown suggested, “Once again, if you already have a Yaz lawyer, speak with your attorney if you are approached by anyone you don’t know about your case. If you don’t have a Yasmin lawyer, speak with a Yaz lawyer who can educate you on your rights as well as guide you if approached by these scam artists.”

Read More

GEC Laxoplex Muscle-Building Supplement Recalled for Containing Steroids

Genetic Edge Compounds recalled all lot codes of GEC Laxoplex dietary supplement capsules distributed between February 2, 2015-May 2, 2017 to the retail level and consumer level. FDA analysis found GEC Laxoplex to be tainted with anabolic steroids and steroid-like substances.

The presence of these anabolic steroids and steroid-like substances in GEC Laxoplex renders it an unapproved drug for which safety and efficacy have not been established and therefore subject to recall.

Use or consumption of products containing anabolic steroids may cause acute liver injury, which is known to be a possible harmful effect of using steroid-containing products. In addition, abuse of anabolic steroids may cause other serious long-term adverse health consequences in men, women, and children. These include shrinkage of the testes and male infertility, masculinization of women, breast enlargement in males, short stature in children, a higher predilection to misuse other drugs and alcohol, adverse effects on blood lipid levels, and increased risk of heart attack, stroke, and death.

GEC Laxoplex is marketed as a dietary supplement and sold as a muscle-enhancing agent. The product is packaged in a white plastic bottle containing 60 capsules with UPC code 0058049984 and can be identified by GEC Laxoplex. The recall affects all lots of GEC Laxoplex. GEC Laxoplex was distributed Nationwide in the USA through various nutritional supplement retail outlets.

Genetic Edge Compounds is notifying its retailers and customers by a formal recall notification and is arranging for a return of all recalled products. Consumers and retailers that have GEC Laxoplex dietary supplement capsules which are being recalled should stop using them and return to place of purchase.

 

Read More