Illinois Injury Lawyer Blog

Court proceedings in an Australian class action lawsuit against Johnson & Johnson and its subsidiary, Ethicon, have revealed that the company tried to squash a report that would’ve revealed more testing was needed to ensure the efficacy and safety of its pelvic mesh devices. The report also stated that Ethicon pelvic mesh should not be used in patients until a randomized, controlled study was conducted. Pelvic mesh is used to support parts of the female anatomy that can shift from pregnancy, childbirth, or other conditions and requires implantation by a skilled surgeon. Members of the class action lawsuit have suffered injuries including intense pain, reduced sex lives, and loss of livelihood.

An attorney for the women has said that Ethicon received the report by French health authorities in 2007, two years after the devices were already in use throughout Australia.  Despite the report, the company put forth a marketing campaign that focused on the low price point and ease of implantation, while also going to great lengths to cover up the report from becoming public. Attorneys for the women have argued that implantation of pelvic mesh requires an advanced surgical technique, well beyond the skill level of a newer or inexperienced surgeon.

Earlier this month, the court heard minutes from an Ethicon meeting in which executives said the release of the French report “could have a major impact on our business if made public” and that efforts should be made to prevent it from becoming public. Court proceedings also discussed Ethicon’s involvement in a 2011 New England Journal of Medicine study and article touting the benefits and safety of their pelvic mesh devices. In 2013, the journal had to print an apology to its readers for misleading them on Ethicon’s involvement in the study and the article. Ethicon had essentially created the study, including the development of the study protocol, and had paid the authors of the article for their time. The company was also able to review the article draft before it was submitted and made numerous and significant changes.

Cedric Kyle, more commonly known as Cedric the Entertainer, is suing Southern California Gas Company (SoCal) for a leak in Aliso Canyon that has caused a wide range of physical ailments for him and his family. The lawsuit contends that Cedric the Entertainer and his family have suffered from unexplained rashes, vertigo, bloody noses and various other ailments. The lawsuit also blames the leak for significantly lowering the property value on the comedian’s home.

The Aliso Canyon methane gas leak occurred from October 2015 to February 2016 and the lawsuit claims that officials knew the area was not being run in compliance with regulations and continued to pump natural gas into wells that were not structurally sound. Records have shown that SoCal employees were aware that gas was leaking for over 24 hours before they called the fire department. The lawsuit specifically notes that the company has known since 1979 that a safety shut off valve was malfunctioning and chose not to repair it.

Experts have described the leak as the most environmentally destructive natural gas leak in U.S. history, with Erin Brockovich comparing it to the 2010 BP oil spill. “I’ve really never seen anything like this. I think the magnitude is enormous. Its like a volcano, and the gas is like the lava that can’t be shut off.”

The Center for Justice and Democracy at New York Law School shared a strongly worded letter to House Speaker Paul Ryan and House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi speaking out against H.R. 1215. The letter, written on behalf of 80 major public interest organizations, highlights the damages that could result from passing H.R. 1215, the so-called Protecting Access to Care Act. Among the most notable passages is this:

“Even if H.R. 1215 applied only to doctors and hospitals, recent studies clearly establish that its provisions would lead to more deaths and injuries, and increased health care costs due to a “broad relaxation of care.” Add to this nursing home and pharmaceutical industry liability limitations, significantly weakening incentives for these industries to act safely, and untold numbers of additional death, injuries and costs are inevitable, and unacceptable.

The latest statistics show that medical errors, most of which are preventable, are the third leading cause of death in America. This intolerable situation is perhaps all the more shocking because we already know about how to fix much of this problem. Congress should focus on improving patient safety and reducing deaths and injuries, not insulating negligent providers from accountability, harming patients and saddling taxpayers with the cost, as H.R. 1215 would do.”

After a couple of false starts, H.R. 1215, the Protecting Access to Care Act is going to the House floor this week.  This massive medical malpractice bill also applies to nursing home and drug and device cases.  The bill caps non-economic damages at $250,000, eliminates joint liability for economic and non-economic loss, caps attorney fees, has a restrictive statute of limitations and says that a doctor and a pharmaceutical company cannot be named in the same lawsuit.

This means, among many other things, that finding an attorney to handle an injury case will be more challenging and that financial compensation for injuries that are hard to quantify (such as pain and suffering) cannot surpass $250,000. 

The bill will not get better during floor debate.  The only amendments that will be allowed are amendments that make the bill worse for patients.  The debate on this bill will begin on Tuesday with vote on final passage scheduled for Wednesday. 

We’d like to share insightful information from an April newsletter from the Illinois Trial Lawyers Association (ITLA) regarding 5 major reasons to oppose the Protecting Access to Care Act, better known as H.R. 1215. The bill, due to be voted on at any moment by the House, has a sweet-sounding name that overrides the detrimental aftermath that will result if the policy becomes law.

ITLA’s newsletter contains information shared by the American Association for Justice (AAJ) and perfectly sums up why we as Americans should oppose the passage of a bill that will take away our civil rights.

Below are the top 5 reasons to oppose The Protecting Access to Care Act (H.R. 1215):

The Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) are on a crusade to make private health care accreditation data available to the public, believing that many major issues related to patient safety are being overlooked. CMS has taken on similar endeavors in the past and were successful – they were responsible for now public nursing home inspection reports.

Currently 9 out of 10 hospitals in the United States are surveyed by private accreditors and not the government, meaning most institutions receiving tax dollars are able to avoid making details of these reports public record. Transparency in health care has become a hot topic as reports in recent months have outed preventable medical errors as the 3rd leading cause of death in this country.

Accreditation Doesn’t Necessarily Indicate Quality