>>678
エチコン事業部の評判はこれです。
結論だけ言うとエチコン製品は副作用リスクの高い不完全な製品。


J&J’s Ethicon hit with $57m verdict in pelvic mesh case
SEPTEMBER 7, 2017

Johnson & Johnson (NYSE:JNJ) subsidiary Ethicon has been hit with a $57.1 million verdict in a pelvic mesh case out of
Pennsylvania, according to a report from The Inquirer.

A jury in Philadelphia ordered the subsidiary to pay the damages to a woman who was left chronically incontinent and
with chronic pain after being implanted with a defective pelvic mesh implant, according to the report.

The plaintiff, Ella Ebaugh, received 2 Ethicon mesh implants which later eroded into her urethra,
according to The Inquirer, and required 3 surgeries to remove the meshes.

The damages awarded are greater than those won by plaintiffs in 4 previously tried cases in
Philadelphia as part of a mass tort program for trials related to the implants.

Previous victories included a $12.5 million award in December 2015, a $13.5 million award last February,
a $20 million award this April and another $2.1 million to a Pennsylvania woman in June, according to the paper.



Supreme Court won’t review $3m pelvic mesh loss for J&J’s Ethicon
OCTOBER 3, 2017

The U.S. Supreme Court yesterday declined to review a $3 million loss for Johnson & Johnson (NYSE:JNJ)
subsidiary Ethicon in a product liability lawsuit brought over its TVT-O pelvic mesh.

A jury in the U.S. District Court for Southern West Virginia originally awarded Jo Huskey and her
husband damages of $3.3 million, finding in September 2014 that the TVT-O transvaginal sling caused her
injuries and that the company failed to warn about the stress urinary incontinence treatment’s risks.

A federal judge later shot down Ethicon’s bid to overturn the verdict and denied the
company’s move for a new trial; Ethicon then appealed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 4th Circuit.
In January a 3-judge panel at the 4th Circuit denied that appeal, ruling that the Huskeys had proved their case.

That prompted a petition for certiorari from the Supremes in May, with Ethicon alleging that the
appellate court improperly excluded product review evidence after misreading the relevant precedent.

Yesterday the high court denied certiorari with no explanation.