DALLAS (Legal Newsline) - A plaintiff who filed a two-in-one claim involving Johnson & Johnson’s Ethicon unit in Texas has lost both.
Plaintiff Jennifer Snowden sued for more than $28 million for injuries she allegedly suffered after the implantation of the TVT Abbrevo mesh, which is used to treat women who suffer from urinary incontinence.
However, a Dallas County jury ruled against Snowden and in favor of the Johnson & Johnson Ethicon unit.
“There were cases in the past where there was liability against the company for the same or similar products, so these cases really turn on the specific facts,” said Israel Klein, an attorney with the Pardalis & Nohavicka law firm in New York.
Snowden's attorney argued that the implant included the chemical polypropylene, which caused a human tissue reaction that was painful, according to media reports.
"The question is when the company put it out, did they know, or should they have known that this product could cause that reaction or had the likelihood of causing that reaction, and did they, or should they have disclosed that?" Klein said.
The case, Jennifer Snowden v. Ethicon, is unique in that Snowden filed against both the company that manufactures the mesh device, Johnson & Johnson’s Ethicon Unit, and the surgeon, Dr. Charmaine Oladell, who implanted the device.
“The probabilities of both being at fault at the same time might be a rarity but even assuming it does happen at the same time, a lot of plaintiff’s counsel will pick their battle because it's a lot to put together," Klein told Legal Newsline. "There's a lot of discovery and a lot of leg work that goes into trying a case."
However, only the claim against the mesh manufacturer went to trial.
“They made a determination based upon the facts that there is no liability,” Klein said. “If they brought the same case tomorrow with a different jury, maybe that jury would find something different so there's no real precedent. However, future plaintiffs’ counsel will take caution because someone else brought a similar case and lost.’”
After the jury ruled against Snowden's claim of liability against Johnson & Johnson, the malpractice claim against Dr. Oladell became the subject of a directed verdict.
“The judge is essentially saying there's no need for it to even go to the jury because there's no way a jury can find in the plaintiff's favor,” Klein added. “That was essentially a denial of the plaintiff's claim as to the physician.”