`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`:
`
`:
`
`:
`
`:
`
`SUPERIOR COURT/CLD
`
`J.D. OF WATERBURY
`
`AT WATERBURY
`
`DECEMBER 29, 2017
`
`D. N.: CV-14-6025333-S
`
`
`
`ROBIN SHERWOOD, et al
`
`
`
`
`V.
`
`
`
`
`STAMFORD HEALTH SYSTEM, INC.
`D/B/A STAMFORD HOSPITAL
`
`
`
`
`DISCLOSURE OF EXPERT WITNESS
`
`
`
`The Plaintiffs, Robin Sherwood and Greg Hoelscher, in accordance with
`
`the provisions of Connecticut Practice Book §13-4, disclose that they expect the
`
`following expert witness to testify at the trial of this case:
`
`
`
`1. Brian J. Hines, M.D., Director of Urogynecology and Reconstructive
`
`Surgery, Stamford Hospital, 30 Shelburne Road, Stamford, CT 06904;
`
`Stamford Health Medical Group, 292 Long Ridge Rd., Ste. 202, Stamford, CT
`
`06902 (formerly Urogynecology and Pelvic Surgery, LLC, Stamford Health
`
`Integrated Practices, 1351 Washington Blvd. Stamford, CT 06901). Dr. Hines is
`
`board certified in female pelvic medicine and reconstructive surgery. Dr. Hines is
`
`expected to testify and offer opinions based on his education, knowledge, training
`
`and experience with polypropylene mesh, as well as his treatment of Plaintiff and
`
`review of her medical records and scientific and medical literature. Dr. Hines will
`
`also testify based upon chart review studies done of his own patients at Stamford
`
`Hospital.
`
`
`
`1
`
`
`
`
`
`Dr. Hines will testify regarding the defective and unsafe nature of the Prolift.
`
`There was no long term data on the Prolift when Dr. Hines first began implanting the
`
`Prolift in 2005. Dr. Hines will testify regarding studies done at Stamford Hospital
`
`and authored and published by him regarding polypropylene mesh and that 27% of
`
`the women studied developed dyspareunia after implantation of polypropylene
`
`mesh.
`
`
`
`Prolift mesh is made of polypropylene. Dr. Hines will testify that he was
`
`trained to use the Prolift polypropylene mesh and tools in 2005 and that he continued
`
`to implant the Prolift mesh into approximately 250 women per year until he
`
`concluded that the Prolift was not safe to use sometime before May of 2009. Dr.
`
`Hines was a paid consultant, instructor and promoter of the Prolift products. Dr.
`
`Hines did not advise Ms. Sherwood in 2006 or 2007 that the complications she was
`
`having were related to the defective and unsafe Prolift.
`
`
`
`Dr. Hines published a study in the July/August 2008 edition of the Journal of
`
`Pelvic Medicine & Surgery wherein he concluded that the Prolift was safe and
`
`effective. Dr. Hines did not disclose in that publication that he was a highly paid
`
`promoter and preceptor for Johnson & Johnson and Ethicon. That same study also
`
`concluded that, “[d]espite the increased use of grafts, mesh there’s lack of sufficient
`
`risk-benefit information.” Dr. Hines then concluded that the Prolift was unsafe for
`
`use. In May 2009 Dr. Hines notified Stamford Hospital and every other hospital
`
`
`
`2
`
`
`
`where he had privileges that he concluded the Prolift was unsafe. Dr. Hines made
`
`several phone calls to various hospitals advising them that the Prolift was unsafe, but
`
`did not make any effort to reach out to the hundreds of women in whom he
`
`implanted the unsafe Prolift. Dr. Hines did not retract or otherwise update his
`
`published opinions with his new conclusions that the Prolift was unsafe. Dr. Hines
`
`withheld from the public and Ms. Sherwood the fact that the Prolift was unsafe and
`
`defective. Dr. Hines continues to keep this information from the public and his
`
`patients.
`
`
`
`This disclosure is intended to supplement, not replace, any previous
`
`disclosures of expert witnesses.
`
`Plaintiffs reserve the right to call any expert disclosed by any other party
`
`and thereafter deposed. Plaintiffs also reserve the right to call additional,
`
`undesignated expert witnesses as allowed by law and in particular, any of
`
`Plaintiff’s medical providers. Plaintiffs further reserve the right to supplement the
`
`above list should another party disclose experts in areas other than those covered
`
`by the above individuals.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`3
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`THE PLAINTIFFS,
`
`
`
`BY: __/s/ Jacqueline E. Fusco
`
`Jacqueline E. Fusco, Esq.
`
`Tooher Wocl & Leydon, LLC
`
`80 Fourth Street
`
`Stamford, CT 06905
`
`(203) 324-6164
`
`Juris No.: 106151
`
`
`
`CERTIFICATION
`
`
`
`
`
`4
`
`
`This is to certify that a copy of the foregoing was Emailed this date, to all counsel of
`
`record.
`
`Eric J. Stockman, Esq.
`estockman@stockmanocnnor.com
`Simon I. Allentuch, Esq.
`sallentuch@stockmanoconnor.com
`Stockman O’Connor
`10 Middle Street
`Bridgeport, CT 06604
`Counsel for Defendant Stamford Health
`System Inc. d/b/a Stamford Hospital
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
` __/s/ Jacqueline E. Fusco
`Jacqueline E. Fusco, Esq.
`
`
Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.
After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.
Accept $ Charge
Still Working On It
This document is taking longer than usual to download. This can happen if we need to contact the court directly to obtain the document and their servers are running slowly.
Give it another minute or two to complete, and then try the refresh button.
A few More Minutes ... Still Working
It can take up to 5 minutes for us to download a document if the court servers are running slowly.
Thank you for your continued patience.
This document could not be displayed.
We could not find this document within its docket. Please go back to the docket page and check the link. If that does not work, go back to the docket and refresh it to pull the newest information.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
You need a Paid Account to view this document. Click here to change your account type.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
Set your membership
status to view this document.
With a Docket Alarm membership, you'll
get a whole lot more, including:
- Up-to-date information for this case.
- Email alerts whenever there is an update.
- Full text search for other cases.
- Get email alerts whenever a new case matches your search.
One Moment Please
The filing “” is large (MB) and is being downloaded.
Please refresh this page in a few minutes to see if the filing has been downloaded. The filing will also be emailed to you when the download completes.
Your document is on its way!
If you do not receive the document in five minutes, contact support at support@docketalarm.com.
Sealed Document
We are unable to display this document, it may be under a court ordered seal.
If you have proper credentials to access the file, you may proceed directly to the court's system using your government issued username and password.
Access Government Site
