Mesh lawsuits are currently being filed nationwide on behalf of women who suffered serious injuries after being implanted with transvaginal mesh products for the treatment of pelvic organ prolapse (POP) and stress urinary incontinence (SUI). Surgical mesh devices have recently been linked to complications including mesh erosion, infections, pain, dyspareunia, organ perforation, and the recurrence of urinary problems. The Mesh Lawyers at Schmidt & Clark, LLP, are accepting potential lawsuits against manufacturers including Johnson & Johnson (J&J), Bard, American Medical Systems (AMS), and Boston Scientific.
Update: Pelvic Mesh Victim Awarded $41 Million in Philadelphia Lawsuit Against J&J Ethicon
February 1, 2019 - Johnson & Johnson’s Ethicon unit has been slammed with a $41 million penalty in a lawsuit filed by a woman who claimed severe complications from the company’s pelvic mesh. The Philadelphia jury ruled that Ethicon’s Gynemesh, Prolift and TVT-O meshes were defectively designed, and that the company was negligent in manufacturing the devices, according to Law360.
Vaginal Mesh Lawsuit Update 5/21/14: The use of vaginal mesh has been associated with severe health complications, and a new study by the American Urological Association (AUA) suggests that even women who undergo surgery to remove the mesh often continue to have problems.
Related Article: Vaginal Mesh Lawyers & Lawsuits
What’s the Problem?
In October 2008, the U.S. Food & Drug Administration (FDA) issued a Public Health Notification  warning physicians and patients of adverse complications linked to the transvaginal placement of surgical mesh for the repair of Pelvic Organ Prolapse (POP) and Stress Urinary Incontinence (SUI), common problems many women face as they age.
Since the FDA’s warning, the administration has received thousands of additional adverse event reports (AERS) associated with mesh products manufactured by at least nine different companies. See below “Products & Manufacturer List” for a list of the aforementioned manufacturers brand name mesh products.
See all medical device lawsuits our lawyers have taken on.
Why You Should Choose Schmidt & Clark, LLP
Our Experience – Defective Medical Device Litigation
“Our firm has significant experience in the area of defective medical devices and mesh related injuries.”
In addition to our national representation of numerous consumers injured by other forms of defective mesh products, our attorneys are actively involved in the investigation regarding the use of transvaginal mesh and vaginal mesh products.
We are able to draw upon the pool of experience gained in other mesh and products liability litigation to appropriately investigate, evaluate, and pursue potential mesh lawsuits.
Free Mesh Lawsuit Evaluation: If you or a loved one has been injured or suspect that you may have complications directly linked to the placement of a mesh product, you should contact our law firm immediately. You may be entitled to compensation by filing a suit against the manufacturer of the mesh and we can help.
Over the past several years, the FDA has received thousands of reports of injuries linked to mesh devices when used for POP and SUI repair. These products are stretched across the vaginal wall to support damaged tissues and implanted using a ‘minimally invasive’ technique. The most frequent complications associated with surgical mesh have been reported to include:
- erosion through vaginal epithelium
- pain, including dyspareunia
- urinary problems
- recurrence of prolapse and/or incontinence
- bowel, bladder, and blood vessel perforation
- vaginal scarring
- mesh erosion
Related Article: Obturator Neuralgia (Symptoms & Treatment)
There has been a total of three nationwide recalls for mesh devices since they first hit the market. In 1999, Boston Scientific recalled its ProteGen surgical mesh after it was linked to a number of injury reports submitted to the FDA. The ProteGen was the first mesh product intended solely for transvaginal applications, paving the way for a large number of similar products that would enter the market in the coming years.
By the year 2000, several other medical device manufacturers copied the Boston Scientific ProteGen design and released mesh products of their own. Due to the similarities between these devices and the ProteGen, they were approved via the FDA’s 510(k) clearance process, which allows products to enter the market without having to undergo clinical testing.
However, after the ProteGen was recalled in 1999, most of the mesh devices that were created in its image remained on the market.
Then in June 2012, Ethicon (a division of Johnson & Johnson) recalled the following brands of surgical mesh after the company was hit with more than 1000 lawsuits over the devices:
- Gynecare Prolift Kit
- Gynecare Prolift + M Kit
- Gynecare TVT Secure
- Gynecare Prosima Pelvic Floor Repair System Kit
Less than a month later, C.R. Bard recalled its Avaulta Plus line of mesh products after a California jury awarded a patient $5.5 million in damages over complications that left her with chronic pain and severe injuries. The landmark case was the first to go to trial among scores of similar complaints alleging that mesh implants made by Bard, Johnson & Johnson, and Boston Scientific caused severe severe health complications.
Mesh Products & Manufacturer List
Johnson & Johnson
- Ethicon TVT
- Gynecare TVT
- Gynemesh PS
- Prolene Polypropylene Mesh Patch
- Avaulta Plus™ BioSynthetic Support System
- Avaulta Solo™ Synthetic Support System
- Faslata® Allograft
- Pelvicol® Tissue
- PelviSoft® Biomesh
- Pelvitex™ Polypropylene Mesh
American Medical Systems (AMS)
- Advantage™ Sling System
- Obtryx® Curved Single
- Obtryx® Mesh Sling
- Prefyx Mid U™ Mesh Sling System
- Prefyx PPS™ System
New Jersey Jury Awards Plaintiff $68 Million in Bard Mesh Lawsuit
April 20, 2018 - A jury in Bergen County, New Jersey, has awarded $68 million ($33 million in compensatory damages and $35 million in punitive damages) to a woman who claims she was severely injured by C.R. Bard’s Avaulta Solo Support and Align Trans-Obturator Urethral Support Systems. Plaintiff Mary McGuinness was awarded $23 million in actual damages and her husband Thomas was awarded $10 million for loss of consortium, according to court documents.
Related Article: Bard Avaulta Lawsuits & Lawyers
Do I Have a Mesh Lawsuit?
The Medical Device Litigation Group at our law firm is an experienced team of trial lawyers that focus on the representation of plaintiffs in mesh lawsuits. We are handling individual litigation nationwide and currently accepting new mesh complications cases in all 50 states.
Free Mesh Lawsuit Evaluation: If you or a loved one has been injured or suspect that you may have complications directly linked to the placement of a mesh product, you should contact our law firm immediately. You may be entitled to compensation by filing a mesh suit and we can help.