July 12, 2020

Volume X, Number 194

July 10, 2020

Subscribe to Latest Legal News and Analysis

July 09, 2020

Subscribe to Latest Legal News and Analysis

Johnson & Johnson Argues that Pelvic Mesh Cases Belong in New Jersey

The sixth pelvic mesh product liability trial against Ethicon, Inc., a Johnson & Johnson subsidiary, is underway in the Philadelphia Court of Common Pleas. The lawsuit alleges that the plaintiff was injured by Ethicon’s TVT Secur pelvic mesh product, requiring her to undergo multiple corrective surgeries and removal of mesh fragments from her urethra. The plaintiff alleges that the defective pelvic mesh product has caused perforations to her urethra, incontinence, and pain. The complaint alleges design defect and a failure to warn.

Citing the recent United States Supreme Court decision in Bristol-Myers Squibb v. Superior Court of California (BMS), Ethicon, Inc. argued that the company’s lack of tangible links to Pennsylvania prevented the Philadelphia County Court of Common Pleas from hearing pelvic mesh cases. Ninety of the cases filed in the Philadelphia court that alleging injuries caused by defective pelvic mesh implants were filed by out-of-state residents.

Ethicon and Johnson & Johnson were incorporated and have their principal place of business in New Jersey. The nonresident plaintiffs received their mesh implants and related treatment outside of the Pennsylvania.

Ethicon Inc. argued that the BMS case limits a state court’s ability to assert specific jurisdiction over nonresident companies, and that in the case before the court, there was no evidence of a link between the company’s conduct, the nonresident plaintiffs’ alleged injuries, and the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. Ethicon relied not only on the BMS case but also on BNSF Railway Co. v. Tyrell, which also limits the extent to which state courts can exercise general jurisdiction over nonresident companies.

Just a few weeks earlier, a Philadelphia County judge agreed to reconsider a two year old ruling allowing nonresident claims against Ethicon relating to the allegedly defective pelvic mesh to proceed.

Whether Ethicon’s contacts with the Commonwealth are sufficient to allow jurisdiction has become the key issue. The nonresident plaintiffs argued that Ethicon’s contract with Pennsylvania-based third-party manufacturer of plastic filaments used in Ethicon’s pelvic mesh product provided sufficient contacts with the Commonwealth.

Scar plate formation, chronic inflammation, erosion, and mesh migration are possible complications allegedly due to defective pelvic mesh. There are many types of pelvic mesh products that are manufactured by various companies. Approximately 54,000 women have filed pelvic mesh lawsuits against Johnson & Johnson and Ethicon nationwide. Additional cases have been filed other device manufacturers.

In cases already concluded in the Pennsylvania pelvic mesh mass tort litigation involving Ethicon transvaginal mesh lawsuits, four juries found in favor of the plaintiffs, who were awarded damages of $2.16 million, $12.5 million, $13.5 million and $20 million. One jury ruled in favor of Ethicon but the plaintiff was granted a new damages hearing after the judge found the verdict was inconsistent with the evidence.

COPYRIGHT © 2020, STARK & STARKNational Law Review, Volume VII, Number 237


About this Author

Martin P. Schrama, Stark Law, Intellectual Property and Litigation Law Attorney

Martin P. Schrama is a Shareholder in Stark & Stark's Commercial Litigation, Mass Tort, Intellectual Property and Green Litigation Groups. Mr. Schrama has extensive experience litigating on both the trial and appellate levels of the federal and state courts of New Jersey and New York, as well as numerous other jurisdictions throughout the nation in a pro hac vice capacity. This experience also extends to regular practice before AAA, JAMS and various other alternate dispute resolution fora.

The primary focus of Mr. Schrama’s practice is...

Craig Hilliard, Stark and Stark, copyright trademark lawyer, complex civil litigation attorney

Craig S. Hilliard is a Shareholder in the Commercial Litigation Group and Chair of the Intellectual Property Litigation Group. Mr. Hilliard concentrates his practice in the area of federal civil litigation, including class actions, fraud, securities, employment, copyright/trademark and other complex civil litigation. Prior to joining Stark & Stark, he served as a law clerk for United States District Court Judge Garrett E. Brown, Jr. and then practiced law at Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom in New York City. Mr. Hilliard is a certified mediator with the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey, and has successfully mediated dozens of cases for the court.

Mr. Hilliard has served as trial counsel in some of the largest class actions in the country, including, In re Bennett Funding Group Securities Litigation and Scheck Investments v. Kensington Management, Inc. Mr. Hilliard also has considerable experience litigating claims, as counsel to both plaintiffs and defendants, under the New Jersey Consumer Fraud Act and other consumer protection laws.

Stefanie Colella Walsh, Pharmaceutical Litigation Attorney, Stark Law Firm

Stefanie Colella-Walsh is a Shareholder and member of Stark & Stark’s Litigation, Insurance Coverage & Liability, Intellectual Property and Mass Torts Groups where she concentrates her practice in complex litigation with a focus in mass tort and pharmaceutical litigation. She also handles litigation related to nursing home negligence and abuse claims, elder abuse, and assisted living facility litigation.

Recently, Ms. Colella-Walsh was a member of the national trial team involved the first trial in the country of a TVT-Secur transvaginal...