Judge Reverses Johnson & Johnson Pelvic Mesh Trial Verdict
A Philadelphia judge reversed a pelvic mesh trial verdict in favor of the plaintiff. Kimberly Adkins sued Johnson & Johnson and its subsidiary Ethicon after her pelvic mesh device eroded in 2012. Despite surgical intervention, the defect left her with significant pain and permanent lost consortium.
Jury’s Decision Inconsistent with Evidence
The Philadelphia jury ruled in June that, although J&J’s pelvic mesh was defective, it did not cause Adkins’ injuries. However, Judge Erdos agreed with the plaintiff’s post-trial motion. Adkins argued that the verdict went against the weight of evidence. The consensus of the experts on both sides of the argument, along with that of the treating physician, was that Adkins suffered some injury from the pelvic mesh.
Erdos agreed that the jury’s verdict was inconsistent. His ruling stated that the case should proceed to a damages hearing.
This pelvic mesh trial is one of five cases so far that have been heard as part of a mass tort. Awards in the other cases range from $2.1 million to $20 million.
“This woman’s life will never be the same because of this defective device. We’re glad the judge sided with the consumer’s rights in this situation,” said Attorney Walter Clark, founder of Walter Clark Legal Group.
Our firm has been handling personal injury cases throughout the California Low Desert and High Desert communities for over 30 years. With a 95% success rate, the California personal injury attorneys at Walter Clark Legal Group will fight to hold those responsible for your loss accountable and win compensation to cover medical bills, lost wages, and pain and suffering. If you have been injured by a defective product and want to discuss your legal options, contact us today at (760) 777-7777 for a free consultation with an experienced personal injury lawyer. We have offices in Indio, Rancho Mirage, Victorville, and Yucca Valley and represent clients through the entire California Low Desert and High Desert communities.
DISCLAIMER: The Walter Clark Legal Group blog is intended for general information purposes only and is not intended as legal or medical advice. References to laws are based on general legal practices and vary by location. Information reported comes from secondary news sources. We do handle these types of cases, but whether or not the individuals and/or loved ones involved in these accidents choose to be represented by a law firm is a personal choice we respect. Should you find any of the information incorrect, we welcome you to contact us with corrections.