Plaintiffs Seek To Revive Reversed $83M Pelvic Mesh Verdicts

Plaintiffs Seek To Revive Reversed $83M Pelvic Mesh Verdicts

Introduction

Earlier this month, a three-judge appeals panel had reversed two verdicts worth $83 million awarded to two women and their husbands over complications from pelvic mesh medical devices and now the two couples have appealed to the New Jersey Supreme Court to reinstate the same.

Last Friday, the two couples challenged the March 2 opinion of the Superior Court of New Jersey Appellate Division and told the Supreme Court justices that the appellate panel incorrectly tossed the verdict over the exclusion of evidence that the companies' pelvic mesh products were cleared through the U.S. Food and Drug Administration's 510(k) process.

The New Jersey appeals court panel had consolidated both the cases and overturned the verdicts, which were awarded by two separate Bergen County juries to the plaintiffs.

The first case was brought against Johnson & Johnson (J&J), Ethicon Inc., Ethicon Women's Health and Urology, and Gynecare, in which a Bergen County jury had awarded the woman and her husband $5 million in compensatory damages and $10 million in punitive damages. The jury held the defendants liable under independent theories of defective design and inadequate warning under New Jersey product liability laws.

The second case had resulted in $33 million in compensatory damages, along with stipulated medical expenses, and another $35 million in punitive damages. The jury held C.R. Bard, Inc., Bard Medical Division, and Bard Urological Division responsible for design and failure to warn defects claims.

The couples further added that the appellate opinion is internally inconsistent and fails to provide clear guidance to the MCL judge on remand and that both the defendants were not limited in submitting any substantive evidence or argument in their defense, including about their failure to perform clinical studies on the marketed devices.

The couple appealed to the reversal as they felt it was unjust and the opinion would also leave the door open for the MCL Judge to decide that the exclusion of 510(k) evidence remains appropriate on remand, especially outside of punitive damages.