Jury Awards $ 7.76 Million In Punitive Damages To Linda Gross-海思k3v2

Womens-Issues After deliberating for many days, the jury in the Linda Gross vs. Ethicon case finally decided to award punitive damages amounting to $ 7.76 million. This brings the total damages to $11.11 million, including the .pensatory damages of $3.35 which the court earlier awarded to her. To recall, the litigation started on the month of January on the lawsuit filed by Linda Gross for the alleged injuries she suffered due to .plications resulting from the use of Ethicons Profit vaginal mesh device. To those who may not be too acquainted with this legal lingo, the .pensatory damages were intended to .pensate Linda for her pain and suffering, lost in.e, present and future medical expenses, and even the loss of .panionship of her husband. The breakdown of the amount is as follows: $ 1,100,000 – Past and future pain/suffering, disability loss $ 180,000 – Past wages $ 500,000 – Future wages $ 385,000 – Reasonable value of past medical services $ 1,000,000 – Reasonable cost of future medical treatment and household services $ 185,000 – Loss of .panionship of Jeff Gross with Linda Gross Punitive damages, on the other hand, are given out as a form of punishment or deterrent to redress a wrongdoing .mitted by the defendant. This is based on the theory that the interest of the whole society and that of the aggrieved party may be satisfied by imposing damages to the defendant. This is intended to deter the defendant and other parties from .mitting the same injustices in the future. In awarding any punitive damages in a litigation, certain requirements must be met. In the case of Linda Gross vs. Ethicon, the jury must have been convinced that there was a willful and wanton disregard on the part of Ethicon on the rights of Linda Gross through a deliberate act or omission. The jury could have awarded Linda Gross the maximum of $ 16.5 million or five times the amount given as .pensatory damages. Under the laws of New Jersey, punitive damages may be given at an amount five times the .pensatory damages or $350,000, whichever may be higher. Or the jury may even decide that no punitive damages may be given based on their appreciation of the evidence presented. This development has been earnestly wel.ed by the thousands of women who were allegedly harmed after undergoing vaginal mesh surgeries for the treatment of their pelvic organ prolapse (POP) or stress urinary incontinence (SUI). This has truly been very encouraging for these victims, especially .ing after the favorable decision of the Christine Scott case six months earlier in California. Based on figures provided by experts, another 20,000 women are praying that they too will have their day in court. About the Author: 相关的主题文章: