web analytics

Boston Scientific RICO Part I: The Court Protected the Company over the Patients

Boston Scientific RICO Part I: The Court Protected the Company over the Patients

February 9, 2016

Boston Scientific RICO Part I: The Court Protected the Company over the Patients

De Tanged Polypropylene Material BSTeresa L. Stevens  v. Boston Scientific Corporation (BSC), EMAI Plastic Raw Material Co, LTD, Proxy Biomedical Limited and Luxilion Industries, NV

In Stevens 59 page RICO complaint filed by Mostyn Law against the above-mentioned, who are accused of smuggling in counterfeit plastic for the company’s Advantage-Sling, two things stand out that are universally important to protect employees and patients, while educating the courts about the medical device industry, not from an attorney but from a medical device industry whistleblower*:

  1. The plaintiff filed a temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction against BSC from preventing the loss of documents. (Part I)
  2. The resin manufacturer, compounder, and molder were also named in the lawsuit and not just Boston Scientific the company responsible for selling the implant to the hospital which the surgeon implants into the patient.  The FDA was not named as a defendant. (Part II)

Unequivocally, this was the right move on the part of the plaintiff to request a temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction against BSC from preventing the loss of documents, for two reasons:

  1. The medical industry has a fact-based pathological history of knowingly and willingly destroying documents when it comes to transvaginal mesh cases.
    1. Cheryl Eifert, a US magistrate judge in Charleston West Virginia, found Johnson & Johnson’s Ethicon, which made Gynecare Prolift and TVT Retropubic meshes, lost or destroyed thousands of documents and computer files about the development of the devices from as far back as 2007.  While this was found in a competing company regarding mass tort cases, the same logic must be applied to prevent the loss of documents.
  2. Unlike pharmaceutical companies where the products are engineered in-house, medical devices are developed by venture capital-funded startups and later purchased by conglomerates like Johnson & Johnson or Boston Scientific.  This is important to understand in this case, as could possibly* relate to employee email server size and document preservation. At the startup level, there are a small number of employees (usually less than 250), where emails can remain active or live on the employee’s account. However, and this is a manipulation of facts from the conglomerates, who claim that too many employees on the server must limit the number of emails, causing employees to purge almost daily important emails in order to receive new ones.  Conglomerates, worth billions, could easily upgrade the server email space for employees, but they know the information obtained from older emails hurts them in lawsuits, which is why they limit email space. The companies are doing everything they can to avoid accountability and this is why it’s so important for the court to intervene to preserve data.
Here's an example from the internet showing how to save off active emails.

Here’s an example from the internet showing how to save off active emails.

While it’s not known if Boston Scientific has a similar system to Johnson & Johnson it’s certainly worth a judge asking the company before ruling in their favor. Click below if you’d like more information on data stored (or not stored) from employee emails.

*Johnson & Johnson Email Server

  1. June 2007, I worked for NEA funded, ExploraMed incubated, startup Acclarent that was purchased by Johnson & Johnson, in January of 2010 where I worked until I was wrongfully terminated in January 2011. While working for startup Acclarent, I was able to keep most of my email without needing to empty my account daily in order to receive new emails.  I believe once or twice from 2007-2010 IT said I needed to save off emails in order to receive new ones. Even though the company was small, reps received anywhere from 15-30 emails a day between in-house employees, surgeons, surgery schedulers, doctor’s offices and hospital administration.  It’s not a lot but, over, time it adds up.
  2.  When Johnson & Johnson purchased Acclarent in January of 2010, Acclarent merged on to the existing Johnson & Johnson email server. To say it was disastrous would be an understatement. Reps email crashing, getting locked out, taking valuable time out of an already busy day to call India (double language barrier) to troubleshoot problems, only to ultimately have to send the computer back and work without it for three weeks, was less than ideal for reps who depended on their computers. The other problem startup reps encountered once purchased by a conglomerate was going from almost an unlimited number of emails we could receive and keep active daily to no more than roughly 35 total on the server.
  3. While it’s recognized there are exponentially more employees working for a conglomerate, it should also be noted that a company worth billions of dollars could certainly afford their employees the necessary tools to successfully conduct business.  We were never shown collectively how to remove emails from the active server and save them in folders. (this may seem insignificant or even second nature to some) but remember why a company wouldn’t teach employees to save things that could potentially hurt them legally in the long run. Also, remember reps weren’t hired for their computer skills.  I only learned of this from a manager, who shared the company secret, after he’d witnessed abusive corporate behavior towards, and warned me to protect myself. Advice, I’m glad I took. 

A court would say a company did not knowingly or willingly dispose of emails, that they just got purged organically, and I would dispute that saying that companies are calculated, fearful of accountability for their unethical & illegal actions, and in a sense committing fraud in anticipation of future fraud exposure. While it’s not known if Boston Scientific has a similar system to Johnson & Johnson it’s certainly worth a judge asking the company before ruling in their favor.

Employees must protect themselves from their employers if they are (or even thought to be) engaged in unethical and or illegal activity, and that includes keeping documents the company asks employees to destroy, all emails and hard drives.  If a company doesn’t have anything to hide then they shouldn’t have a problem.  Employees are also lied to under The Sociopathic Business Model™, and if that’s the case, regardless of company, employees owe it not only to themselves but to the patients who were harmed, by known or suspected unethical and or illegal corporate behavior, to come forward. Corporations who without shame, remorse, guilt, or accountability manipulated facts and chose to put profits before patients, will only be forced accountable if employees and patients working together to force accountability as a means to create positive change.

Corporate CEOs Demand that they be Tipped Off When a Whistleblower Reports their Crimes from New Economic Perspectives (2014). While Stevens’ RICO case against Boston Scientific isn’t technically a whistleblower case, the information she was wishing to preserve is in the spirit of a whistleblower.    I guess we should be thankful that she’s not a government employee, where they’d like whistleblowers to register, like sex offenders.

Shredding documents

Inconsistent & contradictory language to action demonstrates tactics from The Sociopathic Business Model™

Boston Scientific felt ambushed by the plaintiff’s motion for an expedited hearing on the preliminary injunction because they filed without notice to the company.  Ummm lemme get this straight, Boston Scientific wanted a heads up, so they could possibly wipe away evidence before they were made to hand over evidence about the accusations of smuggling counterfeit plastic back into the country for the production of their mesh?  Yes, that’s inconsistent & contradictory to the way lawsuits work.  Oh, and it’s important to note that Chevron Phillips, a resin manufacturer, previously sold to Boston Scientific, but decided in 2011 to stop selling to them.

Inconsistent & contradictory language to action demonstrates tactics from The Sociopathic Business Model™

The Honorable (?) Judge Goodwin, decided to deny the plaintiff’s motion noting they failed in their effort  to ambush Boston Scientific. What the ever-loving fuck? So, trying to prevent a potential crime gets struck down and viewed  as an “extraordinary remedy involving the exercise of very far-reaching power,” because the court would just rather smack a few hands after they’ve destroyed evidence like in the similar Johnson & Johnson mesh cases?  Innocent until proven guilty doesn’t me the courts shouldn’t look at the evidence and make the best decisions based on facts. Boston Scientific is accused of smuggling product into the country illegally and implanting into women.

This is also the same Boston Scientific that just invested $40 million into a new medical device startup NxThera, where the COO, Patrick (Pat) Fabian, was arrested, federally indicted on 18 counts of fraud, and currently awaiting trial, for his actions at my former company Johnson & Johnson’s Ethicon’s Acclarent. NxThera opted to take Mr. Fabian off the company website when questioned about funding fraud but did not remove him from the company. THIS is what Boston Scientific is funding.  Pay attention Judge Goodwin because right now you’re part of the problem, not the solution!

Coming Soon: Part II Understanding The Supply Chain

The resin manufacturer, compounder, and molder were also named in the lawsuit and not just Boston Scientific the company responsible for selling the implant to the hospital which the surgeon implants into the patient.  The FDA was not named as a defendant.

*The information above is not meant as legal advice but to provide facts about the industry as a means to help protect employees, consumers, patients, shareholders and taxpayers make informed decisions.

No Comments

Post a Comment