Law Offices of Tom Plouff
tom plouff phone 312-637-9141

Update January 2016

In the latest Prolift case to go to trial, Hammons v. Ethicon, Case No. 003913(Philadelphia), the jury returned a verdict in the amount of $12.5 million ($7 million of the verdict was for punitive damages). So these cases against Ethicon for the Prolift product used to treat pelvic organ prolapse, which involves a lot of mesh relative to the slings, have been pretty successful. Here is a recap:

September 2015 Wicker v Ethicon, Case No. L-13702-14 (New Jersey)(settlement for confidential amount);January 2015 case involving trial involving Ethicon Prolift product brought by Joan Budke settled just before closing arguments to jury;

Five days into a jury trial before Judge Goodwin, the Bellew v Ethicon, Case No. 13-CV-22473 case settled. . Plaintiff was implanted with the Prolift Anterior Pelvic Floor Repair system to treat pelvic organ prolapse (POP). The mesh allegedly caused numerous complications and four subsequent surgeries to address problems caused;

March 2012 $11.1 million Ethicon’s Gynecare Prolift mesh, including $7.76 million in

punitive damages on behalf of plaintiff Gross. Gross v Ethicon, Docket No. ATL-L-2911-13, Master Case No. L-6341-10-CT(New Jersey).

Update October 2015

Defense verdict in Texas state court in favor of Ethicon in suit brought by Caveness for the Gyencare Prosima Pelvic Floor Repair system.

Update August 2015

Judge Goodwin creates a wave of the oldest filed 200 Ethicon cases to conduct discovery with the expectation that these cases will be remanded for trial across the country in 2016.

January 2015 case invoving trial involving Ethicon Prolift product brought by Joan Budke settled just before closing arguments to jury

March 2015 $5.7 million (includes $5 million punitive) California jury verdict on behalf of Coleen Perry $700,000 regarding complications with Ethicon’s Gynecare TVT Abbrevo mesh.

May 2015 $100 Million Delaware jury verdict Deborah Barba v. Boston Scientific (POP).
Update November 2014

Here is a list of verdicts and recent developments in the transvaginal mesh litigation

June 2015 26 cases involving TVT retropubic cases consolidated for trial in November 2015, before Judge Goodwin. All plaintiffs live in West Virginia.

November 2014 $18.5 million ($3.6 compensatory and $1 million punitive for each plaintiff) jury verdict against Boston Scientific on behalf of four women after 18 day jury trial in MDL in Obtryx sling bellwether trial.

November 2014 $26.7 million Florida state court jury verdict against Boston Scientific for Pinnacle mesh.

Five days into a jury trial before Judge Goodwin, the Bellew v Ethicon case settled. . Plaintiff was implanted with the Prolift Anterior Pelvic Floor Repair system to treat pelvic organ prolapse (POP). The mesh allegedly caused numerous complications and four subsequent surgeries to address problems caused.

March 2012 $11.1 million Ethicon’s Gynecare Prolift mesh, including $7.76 million in
punitive damages on behalf of plaintiff Gross (New Jersey state court)

July 2012 $5.5 million Bard Avaulta mesh (California state court)

Feb 2013 $3.345 million Gross v Ethicon, compensatory including 185 for husband (New
Jersey State court)

July 2013 $2million Cisson v Bard, $500,000 in compensatory damages plus $1.5
million in punitive damages (MDL)

Sep 2013 $73 million (50 of it as punitives, which was later cut down to $11 million
due to Texas cap) Salazar v Boston Scientific(Texas state court)

Feb. 2014 $0 MDL – directed verdict on causation in favor of Ethicon/J&J

April 2014 $1.2 million Batiste v. Ethicon ( jury declined punitives as not gross
negligence)(Texas state court)

July 2014 $0 Albright v. Boston Scientific defense verdict (Massachusetts state court)

Sep. 2014 $0 Cardenas v. Boston Scientific defense verdict (Massachusetts state court)

Sep. 2014 $3.27 million Huskey v Ethicon (MDL)(implanted with different mesh devices to
treat stress urinary incontinence (SUI)(punitives not submitted)

Nov. 2014 $27.7 million With a separate case continuing in West Virginia involving four
women who allege that the Boston Scientific Obtryx mesh was
defective, a Florida jury returned this verdict for against
Boston Scientific

Nov. 2014 18.5 million About $3.6 million in compensatory damages to each of the four
women plaintiffs, as well as another $1 million each in punitive
damages, which are designed to punish Boston Scientific for gross
negligence in the design and sale of the product without warning
about the risk of complications where the mesh may erode through
the vagina, cause infections or other injuries. Second jury
verdict this month in Boston Scientific cases

On eve of trial settlement, Virgil v Bard, Jones v. Bard, Queen v. Bard,

 

 

UPDATE NOVEMBER DECEMBER 2013

On December 3, 2013, another federal bellwether trial will happen in a Bard Avaulta vaginal mesh lawsuits..

The first Bard Avaulta trial in federal court resulted in a jury award of $2 million for the plaintiff, including punitive damage.  The second scheduled bellwether settled.

There are five other federal multidistrict litigations concerning vaginal mesh by American Medical Systems (AMS), Ethicon, Boston Scientific, Coloplast and Cook Medical.  About seven bellwether trials will happen during 2014, concerning these other vaginal mesh manufacturers.

Should these bellwether trials not result in the settlement of the remaining filed cases, we will ask that our cases in the MDL be remanded to the federal court in Chicago for trial.

 

 

UPDATE SEPTEMBER 2013

We have filed cases for Chicago based women in the AMS, Colplast, and Ethicon transvaginal mesh litigation. The first trials, however, are in the Bard transvaginal mesh litigation. The first trial for an Ethicon Prolift mesh lawsuit will begin in August 2014, involving a case that will be selected early next year.

U.S. District Judge Joseph R. Goodwin is currently presiding over six different federal multidistrict litigations involving product liability lawsuits brought against manufacturers of transvaginal surgical mesh, including Johnson & Johnson’s Ethicon unit, as well as C.R. Bard, American Medical Systems (AMS), Boston Scientific, Coloplast Corp. and Cook Medical.

All of the complaints involve similar allegations that women experienced complications from vaginal mesh products implanted for repair of pelvic organ prolapse (POP) or female stress urinary incontinence, including claims where the surgical mesh eroded through the vagina, caused infections and other painful and debilitating injuries.

The bellwether trials in Bard will be followed by trials about the AMS vaginal mesh that are set to begin in December 2013 and trials involving Boston Scientific mesh that are set to begin in February 2014.

There are currently more than 7,700 Ethicon vaginal mesh lawsuits filed in the federal court system, which are consolidated as part of an MDL before Judge Goodwin in the Southern District of West Virginia.

In addition to lawsuits over Ethicon’s Prolift, Judge Goodwin is also presiding over 3,407 Bard Avaulta mesh lawsuits, 8,967 American Medical System (AMS) mesh lawsuits, 5,232 Boston Scientific mesh lawsuits, 435 Coloplast bladder sling lawsuits and about 118 Cook Medical biologic mesh lawsuits.

The first vaginal mesh trial dates in the federal court system began in July, with a lawsuit involving Bard Avaulta mesh ending in a $2 million verdict. The second in the series of four Bard Avaulta bellwether trials ended with a settlement on the first day of trial late last month, and the third case is set to begin in the near future.

In addition to the cases pending in the federal court system, the manufacturers also face a number of lawsuits in various state courts throughout the country. At least two state court cases have already gone before juries, with a California jury awarding $5.5 million in July 2012 for a woman who experienced complications from Bard Avaulta mesh and a New Jersey jury awarding $11.1 million in damages earlier this year for a woman who received Ethicon Prolift mesh.

Following the bellwether trials in the federal litigation, if the parties are unable to reach agreements to settle vaginal mesh cases, Judge Goodwin may begin remanding hundreds of cases back to U.S. District Courts throughout the country for individual trial dates.

Another study shows that there are no benefits to mesh

In a study published this week in the medical journal Obstetrics and Gynecology, researchers indicate that the use of vaginal mesh does not increase a woman’s chance of a good outcome for surgical prolapse repaire when compared to more traditional treatments. Researchers from Georgetown University actually halted the study due to the high rate of serious injuries and problems seen with use of vaginal mesh.

The research looked at 65 women, 33 of whom received vaginal mesh to treat pelvic organ prolapse (POP) and 32 who underwent traditional vaginal prolapse surgery. Researchers surveyed the women after three years and stopped the program early because of a 15.6% mesh exposure rate, meaning the mesh eroded into the vagina.

Of the data researchers were able to gather, they found that there was no difference in the quality of life for women who received the mesh and those who did not, raising questions as to whether the benefits outweigh the risks.

Similar questions have been raised by thousands of consumers who are now pursuing product liability lawsuits over vaginal mesh injuries, and the FDA has been asking similar questions, requiring manufacturers to conduct new studies on the products.

Concerns about the safety of surgical mesh for treatment of pelvic organ prolapse gained widespread attention in July 2011, when the FDA indicated that nearly 3,000 reports of problems with vaginal mesh were received by the agency between January 2008 and December 2010, including cases where the mesh eroded through the vagina, caused infections and other debilitating injuries.

In early 2012, the FDA sent a letter to several manufacturers of these products, ordering that they conduct additional studies and trials to evaluate the safety of transvaginal mesh products, looking for additional information to establish whether they pose an unreasonable risk of injury for women.

Many of these products were approved through the FDA’s controversial 510(k) system, which allowed the manufacturers to begin selling the devices without conducting rigorous pre-market studies. Products were approved by the agency as long as the manufacturer could indicate that it was “substantially equivalent” to other products on the market.

As concerns have surfaced over the safety and effectiveness of vaginal mesh, many of the manufacturers have elected to cease marketing their products in an effort to avoid conducting the required studies.

UPDATE – December 2012

Three More Vaginal Mesh Lawsuit “bellwether” Trials Set for December 2013

According to the most recent court hearings in December 2012There will be three “bellwether” trials starting in December 2013, involving three different manufacturers of transvaginal mesh. These manufacturers are C.R. Bard, American Medical Systems (AMS), Ethicon, Boston Scientific and Coloplast.

Transvaginal mesh products  have been used in recent years for repair of pelvic organ prolapse (POP) and female stress urinary incontinence (SUI).

Often the mesh implants resulted in pelvic pain, infection, erosion of the mesh through the vaginal wall, internal organ perforations and other complications.

The first vaginal mesh trial date in the federal court system is expected to begin early in 2013  that concerns Bard Avaulta pelvic mesh.  A  series of lawsuits involving products manufactured by AMS, Ethicon and Boston Scientific will be prepared for trial dates beginning on December 3, 2013.

The first trial will likely concern an AMS mesh product, followed by a second trial involving a mesh product manufactured by Johnson & Johnson’s Ethicon subsidiary and then a trial involving a mesh product manufactured by Boston Scientific.
UPDATE – December 2012

Transvaginal Mesh Bellwether Trials Set for 2013

In the federal mesh implant cases, the first set of bellwether trials is set for February of 2013 for Bard implants and the second set in June.  The federal court has also decided that the bellwether trials for the implants by American Medical Systems (AMS), Boston Scientific, and Ethicon/Gynecare will also take place at some as yet undetermined time but in 2013.

UPDATE – September 2012

Report Punctuates Risk Associated with Vaginal Mesh

A report this week published in the American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology by researchers explains the risk women may face when doctors attempt to remove a defective transvaginal mesh product. The report was made by researches from the Mayo Clinic and Spectrum Health Medical Group.

Women who have suffered complications from vaginal mesh used to repair pelvic organ prolapse or stress urinary incontinence may face a substantial risk of injury to the uterus during mesh excision or removal, according to a new medical journal report.

The use of vaginal mesh, which may also be referred to as a bladder sling or transvaginal mesh, has increased in popularity over the past decade. The products are used to provide support for organs and treat female stress urinary incontinence (SUI) or pelvic organ prolapse (POP), with the mesh anchored near the uterus to prevent organs from descending in the woman’s body cavity and putting pressure on the bladder or other organs.

The products often involve polypropylene mesh, which the researchers indicate promotes fibrosis. In addition, the depth and how close it is to the uterus create a risk that the patient may suffer an injury to the uterus during the removal process, according the report.

In July 2012, the first case presented to a jury resulted in a $5.5 million damage award in California state court, for a woman who experienced complications where her Bard Avaulta mesh sliced through her colon, causing her to undergo at least eight additional surgeries. Additional lawsuits are scheduled for trial in federal court beginning in February 2013.

Women who suffered complications from vaginal mesh after undergoing pelvic organ prolapse repair surgery may have legal recourse.

There are a number of complications associated with the use of vaginal mesh by women who underwent surgery, including:

• Infection
• Bleeding
• Urinary problems
• Mesh erosion
• Pain during sex
• Discomfort
• Vaginal scarring

If you underwent prolapsed repair surgery with the use of vaginal mesh, and you have suffered from any of the complications listed above, contact my office for a free consultation.

***

UPDATE – July 2012: Request to Consolidate Coloplast Pelvic Mesh Lawsuits Made

A motion to create a sixth transvaginal mesh MDL (multi-district litigation) has been filed over lawsuits regarding Coloplast pelvic mesh products.

Four different MDLs have been centralized in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of West Virginia. A fifth MDL, created in 2004, was established for lawsuits involving Mentor ObTape in the Middle District of Georgia.

All of the complaints include similar allegations that pelvic mesh products used during transvaginal surgery caused serious complications in patients. The products were intended to repair pelvic organ prolapsed (POP) or female stress urinary incontinence (SUI), however some women developed complications including pelvic pain, infection and erosion of the mesh through the vagina.

In May of this year, a group of plaintiffs filed a motion to expand the scope of the existing Mentor ObTape MDL to include pelvic mesh products sold by Coloplast. However Coloplast opposed the request, because the existing MDLs is considered at a “very mature” state and only involve a single product, the ObTape.

The MDL panel will meet on July 26 in Cleveland.

If you or someone you know has suffered pain or injury from the use of vaginal mesh products, contact me today for a free consultation.

***

UPDATE – June 2012

Johnson & Johnson Sold Vaginal Mesh Without FDA Approval

Records examined during the discovery process in the Ethicon Gynecare vaginal mesh litigation includes a letter the FDA sent Johnson & Johnson in 2007 telling the company to stop selling the products.

The letter, from August 2007, told Johnson & Johnson’s Ethicon unit that it could not market the Gynecare Prolift Mesh until after it had addressed 16 potential deficiencies. Despite the FDA demand that sales of the Ethicon Gynecare vaginal mesh be stopped, Johnson and Johnson continued to sell the device while they negotiated with the FDA seeking approval for the product.

In the time that Johnson & Johnson began illegally selling the mesh and the FDA approval, there were 123 reports of adverse events submitted to the FDA.

There are an estimated 1,400 vaginal mesh lawsuits filed over Johnson & Johnson’s Ethicon Gynecare products. The lawsuits allege that the company failed to warn women or their doctors about the risk of complications. Similar lawsuits have been filed against other companies that manufacture vaginal mesh products.

Transvaginal mesh products were designed to treat pelvic organ prolapsed (POP) and stress urinary incontinence (SUI). In July 2011, the FDA issued a warning indicating that they had received throusands of complaints regarding complications from the use of vaginal mesh.

If you or someone you know has suffered pain or injury from the use of vaginal mesh products, contact me today for a free consultation.

***

UPDATE – June 2012

Recent Transvaginal Mesh Lawsuit Information

We have filed another transvaginal mesh implant case in the United States District Court for the Southern District of West Virginia, this one against American Medical Systems, Inc., for its allegedly defective AMS Monarc Subfascial Hammock and AMS Perigee System with IntePro Lite (both products collectively referred to as the “Product”). In that complaint we allege that the Product was implanted in the patient to treat stress urinary incontinence, which is what the transvaginal mesh implant is designed for.

Plaintiff alleges that AMS, like the others (C.R.Bard, Boston Scientific, Ethicon) who marketed the transvaginal mesh implant product when they knew or should have known that the Product unreasonably exposed patients to the risk of serious harm while conferring no benefit over available feasible alternatives that do not involve the same risks. The scientific evidence shows that the polypropylene material from which the Product is made is biologically incompatible with human tissue and promotes a negative immune response in many people. This negative response promotes inflammation of the pelvic tissue and contributes to the formation of severe adverse reactions to the mesh. The Product was unreasonably susceptible to shrinkage and contraction inside the body. The Product was unreasonably susceptible to “creep” or the gradual elongation and deformation when subject to prolonged tension inside the body.

The Transvaginal mesh has been and continues to be marketed to the medical community and to patients as safe, effective, reliable, medical devices, implanted by safe and effective, minimally invasive surgical techniques, and as safer and more effective as compared to available feasible alternative treatments of stress urinary incontinence, and other competing transvaginal meshs. Contrary to Defendant’s representations and marketing to the medical community and to the patients themselves, the Transvaginal mesh has high rates of failure, injury, and complications, fails to perform as intended, requires frequent and often debilitating re-operations, and has caused severe and irreversible injuries, conditions, and damage to a significant number of women.

The specific nature of the Transvaginal mesh’s defects include the use of polypropylene material in the Transvaginal mesh and the immune reaction that results from such material, causing adverse reactions and injuries; the design of the Transvaginal mesh to be inserted into and through an area of the body with high levels of bacteria that can adhere to the mesh causing immune reactions and subsequent tissue breakdown and adverse reactions and injuries; biomechanical issues with the design of the Transvaginal mesh, including, but not limited to, the propensity of the Transvaginal mesh to contract or shrink inside the body, that in turn cause surrounding tissue to be inflamed, become fibrotic, and contract, resulting in injury; the use and design of arms and anchors in the Transvaginal mesh, which, when placed in the women, are likely to pass through contaminated spaces and that can injure major nerve routes in the pelvic region; the propensity of the Transvaginal mesh for “creep,” or to gradually elongate and deform when subject to prolonged tension inside the body; the inelasticity of the Transvaginal mesh, causing it to be improperly mated to the delicate and sensitive areas of the vagina and pelvis where it is implanted, and causing pain upon normal daily activities that involve movement in the pelvic region (e.g., intercourse, defecation, walking); and the propensity of the Transvaginal mesh for degradation or fragmentation over time, which causes a chronic inflammatory and fibrotic reaction, and results in continuing injury over time.

We continue to investigate transvaginal mesh cases and would be glad to look into the matter for you regardless of whether you are in Chicago or the area surrounding Chicago or anywhere in the nation.

***

UPDATE – June 2012

Ethicon to Remove Vaginal Mesh Products from U.S. Market

Johnson & Johnson subsidiary Ethicon will remove its Gynecare Transvaginal mesh products from the market.  Hundreds of complaints and lawsuits have been filed against the company by women who have suffered injuries from its use.

Numerous lawsuits have been filed against companies that make transvaginal mesh products, because of issues with the mesh eroding and causing infections and pain.

Attorneys representing Ethicon sent letters to the judges presiding over consolidated litigation regarding their product, that Ethicon will “stop commercialization” of many of the products identified in the lawsuits.

Ethicon is removing the following vaginal mesh products from the United States market:

  • Gynecare Prolift Pelvic Floor Repair System
  • Gynecare Prolift+M Pelvic Floor Repair System
  • Gynecare Prosima Pelvic Floor Repair System
  • Gynecare TVT Secur System

Vaginal mesh products are often used to repair pelvic organ prolapsed, however they have been closely scrutinized over the last few years. The FDA received over 1,500 reports of complications from the use of transvaginal mesh  between 2008 and 2009. Last year, the FDA issued a warning about the risks of vaginal mesh products, especially when used to repair pelvic organ prolapsed (POP).

If you or someone you know has suffered pain or injury from the use of vaginal mesh products, contact me today for a free consultation.
UPDATE – May 2012

First Federal Court Trial for Bard Vaginal Mesh Lawsuits

C.R. Bard Inc. will face its first federal-court trial under District Judge Joseph R. Goodwin in Charleston, West Virginia, who “set a Feb. 5 trial date for the first of about 600 federal cases contending that Bard’s Avaulta device caused organ damage.” The story points out that “a US Food and Drug Administration report in August 2011 found that vaginal-mesh products should be classified as posing a high risk to patients based on a review of side-effect reports submitted to regulators from January 2008 to December 2010.” The FDA also “ordered 31 manufacturers, including Bard and J&J (JNJ), to study rates of organ damage and complications linked to the vaginal-mesh implants.”

If you need a Chicago attorney to file or investigate a vaginal mesh case please contact my office immediately for a free consultation.

UPDATE – February 2012

Vaginal Mesh Lawsuits Centralized in 4 Different MDLs in W. VA

A panel of federal judges has decided to create three new multidistrict litigations (MDLs) for all vaginal mesh lawsuits involving products manufactured by American Medical Systems, Inc. (AMS), Boston Scientific Corp. and Ethicon, Inc. The new MDLs will be centralized in the Southern District of West Virginia, where litigation over Bard Avaulta mesh systems is already consolidated.

The complaints allege that design defects with the mesh products can cause women to experience
painful and debilitating complications, such as infection and erosion of the mesh through the vagina.

There are currently about 84 AMS vaginal mesh lawsuits pending in 19 federal district courts throughout the United States; 23 Boston Scientific pelvic mesh lawsuits pending in 14 different district courts; and 37 Ethicon or Gynecare mesh lawsuits pending in 22 different district courts.

Each of the vaginal mesh MDLs will be kept separate, because they involve different manufacturers. However, putting all of the litigation before one judge will help reduce scheduling conflicts, eliminate conflicting pre-trial rulings and serve the convenience of the witnesses, the parties and the courts.

We plan to file Chicago area cases directly in the West Virginia court. If you need a Chicago attorney to file or investigate a vaginal mesh case please contact my office immediately for a free consultation.

***

UPDATE – January 2012
Congress to Hold Hearing Regarding FDA Approved Vaginal Mesh (Bladder Slings)

Congress will hold a hearing over growing concerns that FDA approved medical devices are causing individuals throughout the country to suffer debilitating and potentially life-threatening complications.

Earlier this month, the FDA also called for more studies into the safety of vaginal mesh products used to treat pelvic organ prolapse (POP) and stress urinary incontinence (SUI) in women, following growing reports of problems, and the agency’s own analysis which brought into question whether they provide any health benefits. Women in the Chicagoland area have sued the makers of the vaginal implant.

An estimated 300,000 synthetic transvaginal meshes were implanted in women in the U.S. in 2010, with many of these being from Chicagoland against Bard, Boston Scientific, AMS and Ethicon/Gynecare

The FDA issued a warning in 2011 about the risks of problems when vaginal mesh products are used, especially for repair of pelvic organ prolapse as it could find no benefit in using transvaginal mesh to treat POP when compared to older, safer alternatives.

Between 2008 and 2010, the FDA received more than 1,500 reports of transvaginal mesh complications, including erosion of the mesh into the vagina, contraction or shrinkage of the mesh, infections, pelvic pain, urinary problems, vaginal scarring and other complications.

A growing number of transvaginal mesh lawsuits have been filed in courts across the country by women who say that vaginal sling manufacturers created defective products and failed to warn doctors or patients adequately about the risk of complications.

***

There are hundreds of product liability lawsuits against various medical device manufacturers as a result of problems with transvaginal bladder mesh systems, which have been linked to reports of infection, vaginal erosion, pelvic pain and other complications.

Some plaintiffs are now calling for the vaginal mesh litigation pending against four different companies to be centralized in multi-district litigation before one judge in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of West Virginia who now has all federal Bard Avaulta mesh lawsuit.

Motions were filed on November 28, calling for dozens of Boston Scientific pelvic mesh lawsuits, American Medical Systems (AMS) mesh lawsuits and Ethicon/Gynecare mesh lawsuits to be centralized before the judge All of the vaginal mesh lawsuits involve defects with pelvic repair products used during transvaginal surgery to repair pelvic organ prolapse (POP) or stress urinary incontinence (SUI), which caused women to experience painful and debilitating complications.

Persons injured, including ones in Chicago, have requested that currently unconsolidated litigation for vaginal mesh products sold by Boston Scientific, AMS and Ethicon/Gynecare be put into a MDL.

Once the FDA issued warnings about an increasing number of adverse event reports associated with vaginal mesh, patients became concerned as the FDA concluded there was no evidence that transvaginal mesh kits used for repair of pelvic organ prolapse provide any benefit over other available means of treatment.

UPDATE Vaginal Mesh Lawsuits under consideration for multi district litigation?:

Vaginal mesh lawsuits  are under consideration for multi district litigation, which we have experience with.

Last summer, the FDA issued a warning about the risk of transvaginal mesh problems, especially when used for repair of pelvic organ prolapse. In recent years, a growing number of women have filed adverse event reports with the FDA after experiencing infection, erosion of the mesh through the vagina and other serious complications.

Complaints involve design defects with a variety of surgical mesh products.   Products include AMS surgical mesh products, including the AMS Apogee, AMS BioArc, AMS Elvate, In-Fast Unltra, MiniArc, Monarc, AMS Perigee, SPARC and Straight-In mesh. Brands include Bard, Johnson and Johnson, Ethicon and others.

Vaginal mesh is implanted in women to treat pelvic organ prolapse (POP) and stress urinary incontinence (SUI).

  • Erosion, Extrusion or Protrusion of the Mesh
  • Mesh Contraction or Shrinkage
  • Infection
  • Pelvic Pain or Pain During Sexual Intercourse
  • Other Problems or Complications after Bladder Surgery

We have experienced in multi-district litigation. Contact my office today if you have suffered side effects from the use of vaginal mesh. I offer a free consultation.

UPDATE: First Vaginal Mesh Trials to Be Heard in New Jersey (11/2011)

The first Vaginal Mesh lawsuits will be heard in November 2012 in New Jersey. Judge Carol E. Higbee is overseeing the consolidated vaginal mesh lawsuits in New Jersey Superior Court.

Approximately 350 transvaginal mesh lawsuits have been centralized under Judge Higbee for pretrial proceedings.

Judge Higbee issued a scheduling order on October 28 indicating preliminary discovery for cases being prepared for early trial dates will be completed by March 30. Also, expert witnesses will be deposed by October 5.

All of the vaginal mesh complaints state that the manufacturer of the products knew that the vaginal mesh products were unreasonably dangerous, but they continued to manufacture them.

Contact my office today if you have suffered side effects from the use of vaginal mesh. I offer a free consultation.

UPDATE: Prominent Consumer Group Petitions FDA to Recall Vaginal Mesh

Public Citizen, a prominent consumer advocacy group representing 225,000 members, has petitioned the FDA to issue a recall for transvaginal mesh used to treat pelvic organ prolapse.

The vaginal mesh in question was used in an estimated 67,500 surgical procedures in the U.S. in 2010.

Public Citizen claims that the procedures involving vaginal mesh offer no clinically significant benefits in comparison to surgical repairs performed without the use of vaginal mesh, and that the high rates of complications outweigh the potential benefits.

Transvaginal mesh products, sometimes called bladder slings or vaginal surgical mesh, are designed to support organs that have “fallen” in older women or women who have had children, to prevent them from pressing on the bladder and vagina.

Issues revolving around the use of transvaginal mesh have resulted in thousands of reports being filed with the FDA.

Public Citizen has requested that the FDA recall transvaginal mesh and require future mesh products designed to treat pelvic organ prolapse to be classified as class III medical devices. Such a classification will require rigorous premarket approval.

Transvaginal mesh lawsuits have been filed by women throughout the United States who have experienced problems through the use of these bladder slings.

If you have suffered complications from the use of bladder slings or vaginal mesh, please contact my office immediately for a free consultation.

Complications from the use of Bard Avaulta Vaginal Mesh:

A mesh used to treat pelvic organ prolapse, has caused complications for many patients.

I am currently investigating potential product liability cases involving the use of Bard Avaulta Vaginal Mesh (Bard Avaulta Pelvic Support System). These medical devices are sometimes referred to as “pelvic mesh” or “bladder slings.”

Used to correct and restore normal vaginal structure after a pelvic organ prolapse, the Bard Avaulta mesh is surgically implanted.

In October of 2008, the FDA issued Public Health Notifications regarding the use of surgical mesh like Bard Avaulta’s.  The use of the product had been the source of hundreds of reports of complications – some severe. The FDA warns of potentially serious complications resulting from the placement of surgical mesh products.

In a recent article in the Chicago Tribune, “Mesh used in Pelvic surgeries under scrutiny,” it was reported that the director of pelvic medicine fellowship program at Loyola University Medical Center in Maywood, Illinois said that they do not do mesh surgeries as there are better alternatives. It was reported Mayo Clinic also does not do the transvaginal mesh surgeries.

Complications arising from the use of Bard Avaulta Mesh include:

  • infections,
  • pelvic pain,
  • urinary incontinence and development of urinary retention,
  • painful urination,
  • pain with sexual relations,
  • mesh erosion into the vagina, bladder, intestines and uterus,
  • mesh shrinkage or migration,
  • scar tissue formation,
  • granuloma formation,
  • neuropathic pain,

Vaginal Mesh Lawyers / Vaginal Mesh Lawsuit

I am reviewing potential vaginal mesh lawsuits.  If you have suffered complications through the use of vaginal mesh, you may be entitled to compensation. Judges may soon consolidate the growing number of vaginal mesh lawsuits, and it is important that you speak to an attorney immediately.

I offer a free consultation to help you understand your legal options; contact my office today.