Joint replacements are the #1 expenditure of Medicare. The process of approving these medical devices is flawed according to the Institute of Medicine. It is time for patients' voices to be heard as stakeholders and for public support for increased medical device industry accountability and heightened protections for patients. Post-market registry. Product warranty. Patient/consumer stakeholder equity. Rescind industry pre-emptions/entitlements. All clinical trials must report all data.
Please share what you have learned!
Twitter: @JjrkCh
Showing posts with label Bloomberg News. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Bloomberg News. Show all posts

Saturday, June 10, 2017

Governor Chris Christie, Medical Device Industry Kick Backs & History Repeats Itself Ad Nauseam



on June 11, 2010 at 9:17 AM, updated June 11, 2010 at 9:20 AM  FiDA Highlight

A stabbing pain in the hip forced Mark Hirschbeck to abandon his post at third base during an April 2003 game between the Arizona Diamondbacks and the Colorado Rockies.
He was 42, among the best umpires in professional baseball and unwilling to quit a job that paid more than $350,000 a year. Dr. John Keggi offered a hip replacement that could get him back on the field by 2004, Hirschbeck says. That didn’t happen. The ceramic joint made by Wright Medical Group Inc. shattered, leading to an infection and four more surgeries that left Hirschbeck permanently sidelined.
He later learned that Wright paid tens of thousands of dollars to a foundation Keggi helps run and gave him a trip to a conference in the Bahamas. Keggi recommended the ceramic device over the kinds of implants used in 97 percent of cases.
“He was in bed with Wright and picked their product,” says Hirschbeck, who is suing the company and the surgeon, alleging Wright’s product was defective and Keggi failed to install it correctly. “It’s disgusting it would come to that.”
Wright’s professional agreements with surgeons are under investigation by the Justice Department, according to filings with the Securities and Exchange Commission. It’s not clear whether the payments to Keggi were improper or are being examined by prosecutors, who declined to comment. The company and the doctor have denied the allegations in the umpire’s suit.
‘Truly Extraordinary’
Andrew Mills/The Star-Ledger
Gov. Chris Christie holds a town hall meeting before a capacity crowd at the Roxbury Township Municipal Complex in Morris County to discuss property tax plan and affordable housing, June 10, 2010.
The government declared last year that it had overhauled the financial relationships between surgeons and the biggest makers of knees and hips, saying the threat of criminal prosecution for “kickbacks” had forced them to slash payments to physicians. Results of the crackdown were “truly extraordinary,” said Chris Christie, a former U.S. attorney for New Jersey who is now governor, in testimony to Congress in June 2009.
It was too good to be true. Compensation ended up being higher after the September 2007 deferred prosecution agreement because payments were postponed, according to data compiled by Bloomberg and interviews with seven surgeons.
“It’s back to business as usual,” says Charles D. Rosen, president of the Association for Medical Ethics, who is a spine surgeon in Irvine, California. “Nothing will change until someone goes to jail. It’s a big game.”
Prosecutors in the New Jersey U.S. Attorney’s Office, which headed the case, reported a “satisfactory completion” in March 2009 of the probe of Biomet Corp., Johnson & Johnson’s DePuy unit, Smith & Nephew PLC, Zimmer Holdings Inc. and Stryker Corp. Payments in 2008 fell to $105 million from $272 million the year before, the Justice Department lawyers said.
‘Common Happenstance’
The companies increased doctor compensation for 2008 to about $300 million, according to the data compiled by Bloomberg from reports posted on the device makers’ websites. Fees for 2008 were delivered in 2009, the surgeons say.
Payment delays were “a common happenstance,” says Teresa Ford, a Seattle attorney who represents 150 doctors who have consulting or royalty agreements with orthopedic device makers. “None of them had significant changes in their relationships.”
The government numbers were lower than those reported by the companies because Justice Department officials didn’t count payments made to buy out the consulting contracts of some physicians, says Michael Drewniak, a spokesman for Christie, a Republican who resigned in December 2008 to run for governor. A “large number” of implant makers paid to end multiyear arrangements, Drewniak says, because they might not comply with new standards under the settlement.
$300 Hips
“We weren’t just making up numbers,” Drewniak says.
Justice Department officials declined to comment.
The reports on the company websites don’t specify whether any payments were to buy out contracts.
The financial ties between device makers and surgeons help explain why health-care costs in the U.S. rose at 2.5 times the rate of inflation in the past 10 years and account for a sixth of the economy. The $300 million works out to $300 for each of the 1 million hips and knees implanted in Americans in 2008.
The payments show how hard it is for government to hold down costs in a system where pricing is opaque and largely unregulated. In the $14 billion-a-year orthopedic device business, payments to doctors squelch competition, says Chad Rodine, a partner in Castle Rock, Colorado-based Echelon Consulting LLC, which advises hospitals on implant costs.
Four Times Higher
Hip and knee list prices have increased 5.6 percent so far this year, on top of a 130 percent increase in the average selling price of a hip between 1996 and 2008, according to Orthopedic Network News, a trade journal that tracks costs.
In the U.S. in 2010, the average price of a primary artificial hip was $7,200, more than four times the $1,600 in Germany, says Melissa Hussey, a senior analyst on the orthopedic team at Millennium Research Group, based in Toronto. In Germany and other countries, she says, sales representatives have restricted access to surgeons.
“These items are ridiculously expensive, and a lot of the monies in that bucket are to keep the surgeon tied to that product,” Rodine says. He figures about half the price charged for devices can be traced to funds companies pour into persuading doctors to pick their goods.
Device makers work to form bonds early, in medical school, where they underwrite residency programs, or buy books, or sponsor fellowships. Later, they pay surgeons as consultants, speakers or instructors.
Sales Rep’s Car
Company sales representatives attend operations. The reps enjoy wide access to surgeons at a time when some hospitals are moving to limit the interactions that pharmaceutical representatives have with doctors. Academic medical centers, including Stanford University and Yale University, restrict when and where drug company salespeople can visit doctors, and ban them from patient areas.
The connection between device makers and surgeons is hard to break, says Jeffrey Lerner, chief executive officer of the ECRI Institute in Plymouth Meeting, Pennsylvania, which collects pricing data.
“The relationship between the manufacturer and surgeon is so deep,” Lerner says. “The first thing they want to see when they pull into the hospital in the morning is their manufacturer representative’s car.”
As joint replacements became more complex and numerous, implant makers increasingly relied on surgeons to help them develop new products and train colleagues. Physicians became involved in testing new implants.
‘Routinely Violated’
“Engineers don’t know how to do it,” says Joseph Zuckerman, an orthopedic surgeon at NYU Langone Medical Center who has worked as a consultant. “Advances in the design of orthopedic devices would not be possible if physicians were not part of the development process.”
Along the way, according to government investigators, the system was perverted so that many consulting deals, royalty agreements and trips to conferences were intended not to develop better products but to persuade surgeons to use a company’s products. The government charged that the industry “routinely violated the anti-kickback statute by paying physicians for the purpose of exclusively using their products.”
Federal prosecutors began looking into the incentives in 2005. The government’s settlement was with the five companies that make 95 percent of artificial hips and knees. They agreed to an 18-month monitoring plan. Four of the producers also paid $311 million in fines to settle civil complaints filed under the Federal False Claims Act. Stryker was monitored, not fined.
Ashcroft’s $52 Million
Since the agreement, payments to surgeons have been appropriate and for legitimate purposes, according to spokespeople for the five companies. Wright says on its website that it adheres to industry ethical standards in its dealings with consultants.
As for 2008 fees that weren’t delivered until 2009, three of the companies say they froze payments while monitors were reviewing contracts with surgeons to ensure they were proper. Spokesmen for Stryker and Smith & Nephew declined to comment. Three of the court-appointed monitors say they’re barred from talking about the details of their work. The two others, including former U.S. Attorney General John Ashcroft, didn’t return telephone calls. The department declined to release reports the monitors filed.
‘Paying the Price’
A month after the government closed its case, Zimmer CEO David Dvorak told analysts on a conference call that the action didn’t result in a “material change” to what it pays surgeons. Warsaw, Indiana-based Zimmer is the largest implant maker, with 2009 revenue of $4 billion.
Christie was criticized by some members of Congress for appointing Ashcroft, his one-time boss, to monitor Zimmer. Zimmer said then that it would have to pay Ashcroft’s consulting firm as much as $52 million, and complained about the amount.
The biggest change from the settlement is more paperwork, surgeons say, because they have to document in greater detail the work they do. Some say companies have been stricter with entertainment expenses and have cut the number of meetings at resort locations.
“No one is really paying the price,” says U.S. Representative Bill Pascrell Jr., a Democrat from New Jersey. Deferred prosecution deals “don’t work.”
In June 2003, Hirschbeck says, a Wright salesman was in the operating theater when his ceramic hip was installed at Waterbury Hospital in Connecticut, which the former umpire says he was stunned to learn later.
“I didn’t know this guy,” he says. “What right does he have to be there?”
2001 World Series
Back then, Hirschbeck says, he knew next to nothing about artificial implants or the companies that make them. Stout, of medium height and with a fondness for flat-top haircuts, he loved his job, and just wanted to find a way to do it pain-free.
He’d had his moments in the baseball sun. He umpired two World Series, including in 2001 when he became part of the story in game 2 between the New York Yankees and the Diamondbacks. In the 8th inning, Hirschbeck called Yankees third baseman Scott Brosius out on strikes. The Yankees were being shut out. An irate Brosius was soon in Hirschbeck’s face, and a photo of the confrontation ran in sports pages.
“I was about to throw him out,” says Hirschbeck, whose bother John is also a Major League umpire. He didn’t. Brosius backed off and the Yankees lost the game 4-0 and the series 4 games to 3. “It was the most pressure I ever felt. One bad call could ruin your entire winter.”
Cortisone Shots
After joining the major leagues following an eight-year tour in the minors, he was reaping the rewards. But getting into position behind home plate was starting to mean a jolt of piercing pain in his hip, he says, akin to being stabbed with a sharp knife. Cortisone shots provided temporary relief.
Then pain forced him off the field in Phoenix, and he started doing his homework on orthopedic surgeons. His choice of John Keggi of Middlebury, Connecticut, was motivated not just by Keggi’s reputation -- “I heard he was the best in the state,” Hirschbeck says -- but by the notion that he could recuperate close his own home in Shelton, Connecticut.
While some others recommended metal implants, Hirschbeck says Keggi pushed a new ceramic hip from Wright. “I will have you back on the field within a year,” Hirschbeck says Keggi told him. Keggi, in a deposition taken in Hirschbeck’s lawsuit, said he told Hirschbeck the replacement “may allow you to return to work” and that the ceramic hip “had the best chance of lasting the longest.”
Splintered Pieces
Less than two months after surgery, Hirschbeck was on the couch, watching TV, when he heard a pop. The pain was intense; the hip had shattered. On July 26, Keggi opened the patient up, picked out the splintered pieces and installed another ceramic implant. Within a month, Hirschbeck was back on the table.
This time, an infection had developed; Keggi washed the joint out and removed infected tissue. The pain didn’t go away, Hirschbeck says, and he his wife decided to seek out a new doctor, visiting the Hospital for Special Surgery in New York City, which performs the most replacements in the U.S.
A specialist there told Hirschbeck his hip was infected, he says, and delivered an additional jolt of bad news: Fixing the problem would mean taking out the joint and putting in a temporary spacer loaded with antibiotics. That would stay in until the infection cleared. Hirschbeck consented.
$344,813 Bill
For all of September and most of October in 2004, he lay in a hospital bed in the family room. Nurses visited daily to administer additional antibiotics. His wife emptied his bed pan. When he returned to New York in the back of his van in late October to receive yet another hip, he got a combination of components from Zimmer and Waldemar Link GmbH & Co. That operation, his fifth in 16 months, was successful.
There are an estimated 80,000 revisions of hip and knee replacements in the U.S. each year in which an artificial joint is removed because it is causing pain, became loose, failed or is limiting a patient’s mobility, according to a study published in 2007 in the Journal of Bone & Joint Surgery.
The bill for all his repairs was $344,813, Hirschbeck says, mostly covered by workers’ compensation.
In September 2005, Hirschbeck sued Keggi and Wright in Connecticut Superior Court. Keggi’s lawyer, Eugene Cooney, says in an e-mail that his client “has denied these claims and intends to fight them.” Keggi declined to comment.
‘Cooperating Fully’
Officials with Wright, which has denied liability, won’t answer questions about Keggi, Hirschbeck or its products while the suit is pending, according to Tom McAllister, assistant general counsel for the Arlington, Tennessee-based company. It’s the sixth-largest hip and knee maker, with revenue of $487.5 million last year.
Wright is “cooperating fully” with the Justice Department probe that began with a December 2007 subpoena, according to a May 5 filing with the SEC. It’s “probable” there will be a settlement that may require a payment of about $8 million, the company says in the filing.
Keggi, in a deposition, said Wright had given grant money, though he didn’t know how much, to the Keggi Orthopaedic Foundation, where he said he is director of research and his uncle, Kristaps Keggi, is president. “The Keggi foundation was paid nominal sums by various product manufacturers to collect data on the results of hip replacement surgeries,” Cooney says.
Keggi and his uncle, also an orthopedic surgeon, jointly owned the practice at the time of Hirschbeck’s ceramic implant.
Bahamas Conference
Kristaps Keggi was a clinical investigator for the trial by Wright to get its ceramic hip approved for sale in the U.S. The Wright website features testimonials from two patients of Kristaps Keggi touting the company’s ceramic hip.
John Keggi said in his deposition that he attended a Wright conference in the Bahamas and brought his wife. He couldn’t remember the dates or details, according to his deposition. Keggi said the Wright salesman at the time for Connecticut, Scott Fitzgerald, was usually in the operating room to instruct him on the installation of implants. In his deposition, Fitzgerald said that before joining Wright, he had worked in the ski industry and sold outdoor power equipment.
Keggi no longer uses the Wright ceramic hip, having switched to a joint made by Smith & Nephew, he said in his deposition. Last year, Smith & Nephew paid Keggi $25,001 to $50,000 for consulting work and reimbursed him for $7,061 in travel and meal expenses, according to financial records posted on the company website.
The company’s physician-consultants are “compensated fairly” and their input is “central to the development and introduction of new orthopedic medical device technology,” says Andrew Burns, a spokesman for London-based Smith & Nephew, in an e-mail. The company is the fourth largest hip and knee maker with revenue of $3.8 billion last year.
In Ansonia, Connecticut, Hirschbeck lives alone, collecting disability from the league, about 40 percent of his former pay. His marriage ended in divorce, partly, he says, because of the stress of his multiple surgeries.

“I’m miserable,” he says. “It screwed up my life big- time.”

Monday, July 7, 2014

States probe failed implant deceptive marketing: Settlement in Oregon with J&J

By Karen Gullo Jul 2, 2014 4:20 PM CT

Johnson & Johnson (JNJ) will pay Oregon $4 million to resolve deceptive marketing claims over recalled metal-on-metal hip implants in its first accord with any governmental unit involving the devices.
While the sum is dwarfed by J&J’s earlier settlement of patient lawsuits linked to the ASR hip, the agreement may lead the way for additional accords as federal and multi-state probes continue into the company’s sales of the device.
“Oregonians in need of a hip replacement deserve to know that the artificial hip they are contemplating in fact has the qualities, and benefits, that a company advertises,” Oregon Attorney General Ellen Rosenblum said in a statement. “Doctors also need to know that the products they suggest to their patients meet certain standards.”
Oregon is at the forefront of the investigations, Rosenblum said. A group of state attorneys general is investigating how the hips were marketed, while the U.S. Justice Department and the U.S. Attorney’s Office in Massachusetts are probing whether the company made false claims or false statements about the devices to federal health care programs, J&J said in a May regulatory filing.
Oregon began looking at the implants in 2011 and opened an investigation about a year before a multi-state probe began, state Assistant Attorney General David Hart said in a phone interview. J&J’s DePuy, the maker of the devices, began settlement discussions with state officials after they prepared a civil complaint, he said. DePuy sold 432 metal-on-metal, chromium and cobalt hip devices in Oregon from 2005 to 2010, according to Rosenblum.
Unfair Practices
The payment to the state resolves claims that the company violated Oregon’s unfair business practices law by telling patients and doctors that the hips functioned properly when evidence showed they were failing at unusually high rates.
“If other government entities obtained similar payments from DePuy based on the number of devices sold, it would be a very large number and significant deterrent,” Hart said. He declined to comment on the multi-state probe.
DePuy didn’t admit wrongdoing under the agreement, Mindy Tinsley, a DePuy spokeswoman, said in an e-mail, declining to comment on the probes.
J&J has voluntarily turned over documents responding to “informal” U.S. requests for information related to the hip device and is fully cooperating with the government’s civil investigation, the company said in the May regulatory filing.
Patient Suits
The company last year said it would pay at least $2.47 billion to resolve thousands of lawsuits over the implants. The agreement resolved about 8,000 U.S. suits against DePuy brought by patients who have already had artificial hips removed.
The New Brunswick, New Jersey-based company recalled 93,000 ASR hip implants worldwide in August 2010, saying 12 percent failed within five years.
J&J had touted the metal-on-metal implants, first sold in the U.S. in 2005, as a new design that would last 20 years and offer greater range of motion.
As failures mounted, patients complained in lawsuits that the implants caused dislocations, pain and follow-up surgeries known as revisions. They claimed that debris from the chromium and cobalt device caused tissue death and increased metal ions in the bloodstream.
To contact the reporter on this story: Karen Gullo in federal court in San Francisco at kgullo@bloomberg.net

To contact the editors responsible for this story: Michael Hytha at mhytha@bloomberg.net Fred Strasser, Stephen Farr

Monday, April 7, 2014

Plaintiff awarded $1.2M by Texas jury for defective surgical mesh product




 April 04, 2014 at 11:38 AM

Johnson & Johnson was ordered by a Texas jury to pay $1.2 million to a woman who alleged one of the company’s lines of vaginal-mesh implants to treat incontinence was defectively designed, in the first verdict against the company over those devices.
Jurors in state court in Dallas concluded the design of the TVT-O mesh sling implanted in Linda Batiste was flawed and the 64-year-old woman deserved $1.2 million in compensatory damages, her lawyers said. They argued Batiste suffered pelvic pain when the device eroded inside her.
J&J, based in New Brunswick, faces more than 12,000 lawsuits accusing its Ethicon unit of making improperly designed vaginal inserts, such as the slings, that damaged women’s organs and made sex painful. Most of the cases have been consolidated before a federal judge in West Virginia for pretrial information exchanges while other cases are being heard in state courts.
The U.S. Food and Drug Administration has ordered J&J, C.R. Bard Inc. and 31 other vaginal-implant makers to study rates of organ damage and complications linked to the implants after manufacturers faced a wave of lawsuits over the devices.
Doctors inserted more than 70,000 mesh devices in the U.S. in 2010 alone, threading them through incisions in the vagina to fortify pelvic muscles that failed to support internal organs or to treat incontinence, according to court filings.
Appeal Planned
J&J officials noted the Dallas jury rejected Batiste’s claims that Ethicon didn’t provide proper warnings about the slings’ health risks and declined to award punitive damages.
“The jury’s verdict on design defect is disappointing, and we believe we have strong grounds for appeal,” Matthew Johnson, an Ethicon spokesman, said yesterday in an e-mailed statement.
J&J officials decided in 2012 to stop selling some lines of vaginal-mesh implants after being hit with a wave of lawsuits over the devices. The TVT-O sling Batiste, a former nurse, received is still on the market, Thomas Cartmell, one of her lawyers, said in a phone interview.
“This verdict represents the first time an impartial jury had the opportunity to decide whether Ethicon’s sling products are defective and they found exactly that,” Bryan Aylstock, a plaintiffs’ lawyer helping to oversee cases gathered before U.S. District Judge Joseph Goodwin in West Virginia, said in a phone interview. “We believe this is the first of many more verdicts to come over this dangerous product,” he added.
NJ Verdict
Last year, a New Jersey jury ruled J&J must pay $11.1 million in damages to a woman who blamed a Prolift device for her injuries in the first case over any of the company’s implants to go to trial. The Prolift implants help support sagging organs.
Lawyers for J&J, the world’s biggest maker of medical products, argued in court papers that the TVT-O slings are safe and effective and the company properly warned consumers about their risks.
In February, Goodwin threw out a woman’s claims that another line of the company’s sling inserts was def


Updated April 24, 2014

WOMAN WITH SURGICAL MESH STILL SUFFERING, YEARS AFTER SURGERY  (Video)  

FiDA Highlights
by JANET ST. JAMES
WFAA TV  Dallas, TX
Posted on April 24, 2014 at 10:37 PM
Updated yesterday at 10:43 PM

DALLAS — It's not just walking that's painful for 64-year-old Linda Batiste. Life, in general, is a physical struggle.
"I have pelvic pain," she said through tears. "It actually does feel like a scouring pad in your body. You can feel in your women parts, what it is. It's there."
The condition that brought Batiste to tears is embarrassing for her discuss. That feeling comes from a product left inside her body to fix urinary incontinence.
More than 20-million women in the United States suffer from urinary incontinence and/or pelvic prolapse. In thousands of cases — including Batiste's — doctors use a pliable, gauze-like mesh sling to support the bladder and other organs.
But what Batiste got from her 2011 procedure was not relief.
"I have never been pain-free since then,” she said.
Surgical mesh is a synthetic material manufactured by several companies and routinely used for urinary incontinence, pelvic prolapse, and hernia operations.
Attorney Tim Goss, a parner at the Dallas law firm Freese & Goss, represented Batiste in a product liability case against the Johnson & Johnson subsidiary Ethicon. It was the first mesh cast to go before a Texas jury.
"The polypropylene mesh, it degrades, it disintegrates, it extrudes, it frays, it ropes, and it has particle loss,” he said. “And all of those problems cause other problems — like scarring, chronic pain, for example."
The American Urogynecologic Society says mesh is "safe, effective, and has improved the quality of life for millions..."
"It can be a bend-over pain, where it will be a sharp stab," he said.
Samples was forced to travel out of state for surgery to remove the mesh. The procedure was not a complete success, and Samples continues to have some pain, even now.
The FDA first issued a "Public Health Notification" in 2008, saying it had received "over 1,000" reports of "adverse events" "for surgical mesh devices."
In 2011, The FDA sent out another warning, saying "serious complications associated with surgical mesh" "are not rare" and that mesh "may expose patients to greater risk" than traditional procedures.
Since then, women across the country have formed organizations and online support groups trying to get mesh removed from the market.
Linda Batiste won a $1.2 million judgment against the maker of her mesh, Ethicon.
"It's significant because there are almost 100,000 other cases pending around the country regarding this type of product,” said Goss, who represents 9,000 mesh cases.
Goss said the lawsuits have the potential to become the largest mass-tort in history — bigger than the Phen-Fen diet drug mess.
A statement from Ethicon spokesman Matthew Johnson called the Dallas verdict mixed:
"A jury in the 95th Judicial District Court of Dallas County, Texas, returned a mixed verdict today in a product liability trial concerning Ethicon’s TVT-O pelvic mesh, which is used as a minimally invasive treatment for women suffering from stress urinary incontinence (SUI).
"The jury found Ethicon properly informed of the known risks associated with TVT-O. The jury also found that the product was defectively designed. The jury awarded $1,200,000 in compensatory damages. The jury declined to award punitive damages.
“We believe the evidence showed Ethicon’s TVT-O pelvic mesh was properly designed and that Ethicon acted appropriately and responsibly in the research, development and marketing of the product. The jury’s verdict on design defect is disappointing, and we believe we have strong grounds for appeal.
“We empathize with all women suffering from SUI, which can be a serious and debilitating condition, and we are always concerned when a patient experiences adverse medical events,” Johnson continued. “TVT-O has been deemed safe and effective by regulators and practitioners alike, and it continues to be an important option for treating physicians to offer to women suffering from SUI.”
In the meantime, Linda Batiste has had several surgeries to try to remove the mesh, which is embedded in her tissue. Her original problem of incontinence is back.
"And it's compounded the pain that I normally would have had,” she said. “I never wish for any other woman to feel this way or to have it happen to them."

Thursday, August 15, 2013

Failed Surgical Mesh producer C.R. Bard guilty.



By Jef Feeley & Phil Milford - Aug 15, 2013 2:51 PM CT
            C.R. Bard Inc. (BCR) should pay $250,000 to a woman who sued saying she suffered injuries from the company’s vaginal-mesh implant, a jury found.
The first federal-court trial of more than 5,000 claims over the devices now moves to the punitive-damages phase in Charleston, West Virginia.
Jurors deliberated about 12 hours over two days before finding Murray Hill, New Jersey-based Bard liable today for injuries that Donna Cisson blamed on its Avaulta line of devices.
Patients claim the implants cause organ damage and make sexual intercourse painful when they erode. Johnson & Johnson (JNJ), Endo Health Solutions Inc. (ENDP)-formerly American Medical Systems- and Boston Scientific Corp. (BSX) face similar claims that their implants, threaded in place through incisions, degrade and shrink over time.
Cisson’s first trial, in July, ended in a mistrial after a witness began testifying about the devices’ marketing and removal from the market. U.S. District Judge Joseph Goodwin ruled earlier that plaintiffs couldn’t mention that Bard had withdrawn the products.
Scott Lowry, a Bard spokesman, wasn’t immediately available at his New Jersey office to comment on the verdict.
The Bard consolidated cases are In re C.R. Bard Inc. Pelvic Repair System Products Liability Litigation, 10-md-02187, and Cisson’s case is Cisson v. C.R. Bard Inc., 11-cv-00195, U.S. District Court, Southern District of West Virginia (Charleston).
To contact the reporters on this story: Jef Feeley in federal court in Charleston, West Virginia, at jfeeley@bloomberg.net; Phil Milford in Wilmington, Delaware, at pmilford@bloomberg.net.
To contact the editor responsible for this story: Michael Hytha at mhytha@bloomberg.net.

Monday, February 25, 2013

Harmed patient not healed by $3.35M verdict.




By David Voreacos - Feb 25, 2013 11:44 AM CT  FiDA highlight
           
           
Johnson & Johnson (JNJ)’s Ethicon unit failed to properly warn of the risks of a vaginal mesh implant and made fraudulent misrepresentations to a South Dakota nurse who sued, a New Jersey jury ruled in the first verdict in more than 2,100 lawsuits filed over the device.
Jurors ordered J&J to pay $3.35 million to the nurse, Linda Gross, and her husband. Gross, 47, had 18 operations after the device was implanted.

J&J, the world’s biggest seller of health-care products, didn’t defectively design the mesh and didn’t make fraudulent misrepresentations to Gross’s doctor, the jury ruled. Jurors decided that the company failed to warn Gross’s implanting surgeon. The verdict in Atlantic City state court came in the first trial of claims Ethicon’s Gynecare Prolift injured women.
“This verdict establishes that Johnson & Johnson and Ethicon failed to tell physicians and women the truth about the catastrophic complications that can result from the Prolift,” Gross attorney Adam Slater said in an interview.
Slater argued to jurors that company documents and e-mails showed Ethicon knew the mesh would cause pain and harm women. Gross blamed the mesh for constant pain that makes it hard to sit and for subsequent operations to remove mesh that hardened.
‘Doctors Knew’
J&J claims the Prolift is safe and effective and it warned of the risks.
“Our position is that the Prolift is a safe and effective product, that Ethicon adequately warned doctors of the risks, that doctors knew of the risks,” J&J attorney Christy Jones said in her closing arguments on Feb. 15.
Superior Court Judge Carol Higbee is considering whether to allow Gross’s attorneys to pursue punitive damages, which are intended to punish the company. If so, the same jury would hear evidence and decide whether to award such damages. New Jersey caps punitive damages at five times compensatory damages, which in this case would be $16.75 million. Jurors delivered their verdict on the fifth day of deliberations.
Gross sought $3.38 million for lost earnings and past and future medical expenses. She also sought unspecified damages for pain and suffering.
Difficult Removal
The Prolift, made of a polypropylene mesh, was inserted through an incision in the vagina. In August, J&J stopped selling four mesh devices in the U.S., including the Prolift. J&J, based in New Brunswick, New Jersey, said in June that it would end sales worldwide because the products lacked commercial viability, not because of their safety and effectiveness.
Slater claimed that Gross’s chronic pain and other health problems were risks Ethicon knew about before first selling Prolift in March 2005. Slater said Ethicon knew the device caused pain and often became exposed through the vaginal skin. He said it hardened in women’s bodies and was difficult for surgeons to remove.
Gross, of Watertown, South Dakota, testified on Jan. 31 that her life has changed dramatically for the worse since her mesh was implanted. She said she is in constant pain and can no longer sit comfortably, and she has prescriptions for 20 different medicines to help with her pelvic problems.
“Who you see standing here now is not who I was,” Gross told jurors. “I was eager and energetic, loved to go to work, loved to participate in church activities, school activities.”
Little Risk
Kevin Benson, the South Dakota surgeon who implanted her Prolift on July 13, 2006 to shore up pelvic muscles, was “so gung-ho” about the Prolift that she thought she needn’t worry. She understood from talking to Benson and reading a company brochure that she faced little risk and that the mesh could be removed easily, she said. Had she known all the risks, she said, she wouldn’t have chosen the Prolift.
Gross said she has had more than 400 visits to doctors and physical therapists for treatment, exams and tests, which have been “horrific.”
“I am fearful of dying because this pain is so bad,” she said.
On cross-examination, Jones sought to establish that before many of her surgeries, doctors warned that they may not help her pain. At one point, Gross shouted at Jones: “You’re trying to blame it on me, and it’s not right.”
Jurors saw the video deposition of Benson, who did three follow-up surgeries to remove portions of the mesh to help her with her pain. Other doctors also removed parts of her mesh.
During jury deliberations, the jury reheard testimony from both Gross and Benson. During the trial, which began Jan. 10, jurors also heard from 11 company witnesses and several experts on each side.
Johnson & Johnson shares fell 2 cents to $76.23 at 12:40 p.m. in New York Stock Exchange trading.
The case is Gross v. Gynecare Inc., Atl-L-6966-10, Superior Court of Atlantic County, New Jersey (Atlantic City).
To contact the reporter on this story: David Voreacos in Atlantic City, New Jersey, at dvoreacos@bloomberg.net
To contact the editor responsible for this story: Michael Hytha at mhytha@bloomberg.net




Accessing justice is a high barrier for patients who experience failed implanted medical devices. they are hurt and medically impoverished. The surgeons are not legally required to report "adverse events" to the FDA unless there is a fatality.  Registry of the devices (if there is any) is held in a proprietary silo and data of implants success/failure is obscured for patients making life-changing decisions.  The monumental failure of Johnson & Johnson both for DePuy MoM (metal on metal hips) and Ethicon surgical mesh were preventable if marketing had not led science.  Why is this not criminal?  It is defrauding the government because taxpayers absorb the expen$ive accountability that the industry does not. FiDA Failed Implant Device Allicance  Joleen Chambers

Tuesday, June 26, 2012

J&J ignores FDA rules: women outraged!




J&J Sold Vaginal Mesh Implant After Sales Halt Ordered LINK
By David Voreacos and Alex Nussbaum on June 26, 2012  Bloomberg News
Manufacturers including J&J sold about $175 million worth of prolapse mesh worldwide and another $295 million for incontinence treatments in 2010, C.R. Bard executives estimated on a conference call that year. Even for top sellers of the devices, the products made up no more than 2 percent of company sales, said Michael Matson, a Mizuho Securities USA analyst in New York.
The numbers declined as lawsuits were filed, he said in a phone interview.
“The doctors aren’t implanting them,” Matson said. “The patients don’t want them.”
On June 5, J&J said it will stop selling four vaginal mesh implants including the Prolift. The move wasn’t a recall and J&J remains confident in the safety and effectiveness of the devices, Johnson said. The company will not withdraw the Prolift before its “planned discontinuation” of the mesh products over the next three to nine months, he said.
“Our decision to discontinue these products is based on their commercial viability in light of changing market dynamics,” he said.
16 Questions
In letters to state and federal judges, the company said that it will update labeling for one device, the Gynemesh, to allow only abdominal, not vaginal, insertion.
The FDA learned of the Prolift after J&J cited it in an application to sell a related device, the Prolift+M, Liscinsky said. The agency told J&J to file for the Prolift as well, and it combined the review for both devices before the August 2007 letter.
“Due to the complexity of this procedure and potential high risk for organ perforation, bench testing is not sufficient to demonstrate device safety and efficacy,” the FDA said in the letter. Bench testing refers to laboratory testing to determine how a device will function in a person.
In the August 2007 letter, the FDA asked 16 questions about the Gynemesh and Prolift, which are made of the same nonabsorbable polymer. The Prolift kit includes pre-shaped mesh and instruments to help surgeons implant the device.
Infection, Abscess
One FDA query was about a “significant number” of complications from 2004 to 2007 on the earlier device, the Gynemesh. The agency got 174 such reports, including for infection, abscess and organ perforation. Most of the cases required additional surgery.
The agency’s letter also found that labeling for the Prolift+M device was deficient because it couldn’t support claims that the mesh has “elastic properties that allow adaptation to physiological stresses.” In its response, J&J agreed to remove that claim.
Many of the documents unsealed last month include e-mails between J&J and the FDA over the wording of product labeling about the benefits and risks.
Six days before the FDA cleared the Prolift, J&J agreed in a written response to say in the label that the safety and effectiveness of the device, compared to conventional surgical repair without mesh, “have not been demonstrated in randomized controlled clinical trials.”
Rather, J&J wrote, the substantial equivalence to earlier approved devices had been demonstrated through other tests.
The federal cases are In re Ethicon Inc., Pelvic Repair System Products Liability Litigation, 12-md-2327, U.S. District Court, Southern District of West Virginia (Charleston).
To contact the reporters on this story: David Voreacos in Newark, New Jersey at dvoreacos@bloomberg.net; Alex Nussbaum in New York at Anussbaum1@bloomberg.net
To contact the editors responsible for this story: Michael Hytha at mhytha@bloomberg.net; Reg Gale at rgale5@bloomberg.ne


Comment by retrievethis (FiDA blog/Joleen Chambers)
I am outraged that Congress will not remove the legislative loophole that allows untested medical devices to be implanted in the human body and has removed citizen rights to justice by providing "cover" for the industry.  Congress also has withheld adequate funding for the FDA so that it is weak and filled with industry insiders who have little compassion for the patient harm that is produced.  Consumer beware!