Phila. Jury Hands J&J Subsidiary a Defense Win in Latest Pelvic Mesh Trial
The defense win in 'Krolikowski v. Ethicon Women's Health and Urology' was handed up Wednesday after more than three weeks of trial before Philadelphia Court of Common Pleas Judge Charles Cunningham III.
April 18, 2019 at 12:03 PM
4 minute read
A Philadelphia jury has declined to hold Johnson & Johnson subsidiary Ethicon liable for injuries that a woman claimed she suffered as a result of the company's allegedly defective pelvic mesh product.
The defense win in Krolikowski v. Ethicon Women's Health and Urology was handed up Wednesday after more than three weeks of trial before Philadelphia Court of Common Pleas Judge Charles Cunningham III.
Plaintiffs suing in Philadelphia over Ethicon's mesh products have repeatedly won multimillion-dollar verdicts, including a $41 million award in January. The verdict in Krolikowski marks only the second time a Philadelphia jury has found in favor of Ethicon over its pelvic mesh product, although the prior defense win was subsequently reversed by the trial court judge, a decision that is currently on appeal.
The plaintiff, Malgorzata Krolikowski, was represented by Kline & Specter attorneys Colin Burke and Elia Robertson. Ethicon was represented by Sean Gallagher and Jeannie Tinkham of Bartlit Beck and Butler Snow attorney Andrea La'Verne Edney, as well as Julie Callsen and Jennifer Steinmetz of Tucker Ellis and Melissa Merk and Eileen Somers of Drinker Biddle & Reath.
In an emailed statement Burke said the case presented unique challenges because of Krolikowski's related medical issues and gaps in her medical coverage and treatment. He also noted that, although the jury found Ethicon's conduct was not causally related to the injuries, the jury also determined that the company had failed to exercise due care in its design, marketing and sale of the mesh device.
“We have witnessed this finding of negligence against the defendants consistently throughout these cases. The juries in Philadelphia had uniformly made it clear to the defendants that their conduct is unacceptable,” he said. “We look forward to continuing our fight on behalf of women and holding Ethicon and Johnson & Johnson responsible for the harm they have caused women.”
Mindy Tinsley, a spokeswoman for Ethicon, said the evidence showed the company's TVT-Secur device was properly designed and not the cause of the injuries.
“We empathize with women suffering from stress urinary incontinence, which can be a serious and debilitating condition,” Tinsley said in the statement. “There are various treatment choices for women with this condition seeking to improve their quality of life, including surgical treatment with implantable mesh, which is backed by years of clinical research and is considered by most doctors to be the gold standard treatment.”
Krolikowski's was one of nearly 90 lawsuits pending in Philadelphia over claims that Ethicon negligently designed mesh products and failed to warn doctors and patients about the dangers. More than 10,000 suits are also pending against Ethicon in federal court over the same products.
The first pelvic mesh case in Philadelphia was tried in late 2015, and since then six cases have resulted in wins for plaintiffs, with awards ranging from $2.16 million to $57.1 million.
The only other case to come to a defense win was Adkins v. Ethicon. That case was handled by Bryan Aylstock of Aylstock, Witkin, Kreis & Overholtz. About a month after the win in that case, the judge who handled Adkins issued a one-page order granting Adkins' posttrial motion, which had contended that the jury's findings were inconsistent on the issue of whether the alleged design defect caused the injuries. The judge ultimately determined that the case should proceed to a damages hearing, but that decision is currently on appeal to the Pennsylvania Superior Court.
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2024 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllThe Defense Bar Is Feeling the Strain: Busy Med Mal Trial Schedules Might Be Phila.'s 'New Normal'
7 minute readFederal Judge Allows Elderly Woman's Consumer Protection Suit to Proceed Against Citizens Bank
5 minute readJudge Leaves Statute of Limitations Question in Injury Crash Suit for a Jury
4 minute readSupreme Court's Ruling in 'Students for Fair Admissions' and Its Impact on DEI Initiatives in the Workplace
6 minute readTrending Stories
- 1Amid 'Existential War for Talent', Paul Weiss Promotes Both Equity and Non-Equity Partners
- 2After Regime Change, Syria Remains Liable in US Federal Courts for Alleged Assad-era Terrorism Support
- 3Prosecutors Want Tom Girardi to Serve 14 Years In Prison. His Lawyers Don't Want Him Behind Bars.
- 4Atkins Likely to Bring Pro-Business, Light Regulatory Touch to SEC, Say Agency Observers
- 5The Boom Continues: These Firms All Opened New Florida Offices in 2024
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250