J&J has defended the efficacy of its product and said it more than adequately warned doctors about the inherent risks of using the device. It said Cavness’ injuries are not the result of an adverse reaction to the Prosima but instead were caused by a pelvic floor disorder that was triggered by the same on-the-job injury that initially led her to seek surgery for pelvic organ prolapse.
“Mesh is not, was not and will not be the cause of her pain,” said William Gage of Butler Snow LLP, an attorney for J&J. “There is no proximate cause.”
After the verdict was read, several jurors said they were frustrated by the questions they had to answer. Two jurors said the jury thought they would get questions about whether Cavness had mesh remaining in her, not whether the product was defectively designed. Deliberations were heated, and around noon today, the jury thought they might not be able to come to a consensus, the jurors said.
Juror Godwin Egbobawaye said many of the jurors shed tears during deliberation out of sympathy with Cavness, but ultimately did not think she proved the Prosima device was the proximate cause of her injuries.
The Dallas trial is the country’s first involving Prosima. Other J&J pelvic mesh products have racked up a mixed verdict in state court and bellwether federal trials. The company faces tens of thousands of lawsuits in federal multidistrict litigation, and is set for several state court trials in Texas in the next six months involving its mesh products.
To read more of the Law360’s coverage of William M. Gage in its entirety, please visit the link below: