To expedite the processing of similar cases, mesh device lawsuits were consolidated for pretrial proceedings as part of multidistrict litigation (MDL), starting in 2010. Nearly 70,000 mesh lawsuits are pending in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of West Virginia, and others are pending in state courts.

According to the U.S. Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation in a report from November 17, 2014, U.S. District Judge Joseph R. Goodwin is overseeing approximately:

  • 10,000 lawsuits against C.R. Bard
  • 18,000 lawsuits against American Medical Systems
  • 14,000 lawsuits against Boston Scientific
  • 22,000 lawsuits against Ethicon
  • 1,700 lawsuits against Coloplast
  • 250 lawsuits against Cook Medical
  • 70 lawsuits against Neomedic

  • Current reports indicate that the number of transvaginal mesh cases has increased to more than 80,000-plus lawsuits.

    Call Today!

    1 (855) 553-4959

    Litigation Facts

    Women who have suffered health complications or serious injuries from transvaginal mesh devices filed complaints against the manufacturers for multiple reasons. Some of these include:

  • Defective design: Cases against manufacturers of transvaginal mesh devices claim that a problem with the design of mesh devices caused erosion and other complications.
  • Failure to warn: Many transvaginal mesh lawsuits allege that manufacturers did not provide adequate warnings about the serious risks of using these products.
  • Breach of warranty: These cases address the manufacturers' implied guarantee that the mesh devices were made from quality materials, which were safe for patients.
  • Manufacturing design: The complaints focus on the manufacturer's failure to meet specifications or a production error, impairing quality, safety and effectiveness.

  • Some transvaginal mesh lawsuits also cite various manufacturers' failure to conduct sufficient product research before selling the mesh devices. Complaints allege that they did not provide warnings about serious health risks and complications, which would have permitted more informed choices about use of these products. Court documents refer to companies' legal duty to offer safe and effective mesh devices instead of misleading details.

    Mesh Device Case Details

    To help you understand the claims in an actual mesh device lawsuit, here are the details involving a woman who suffered injuries:

    In July 2011, Judy Conlin of Corbin, Ky., used mesh products from Boston Scientific and Ethicon. They were implanted to treat POP and SUI, but resulted in serious health complications. Judy and her husband, Timothy, filed a lawsuit against both mesh manufacturers for:
  • Failure to warn
  • Fraud
  • Hidden information about permanent and debilitating damage

  • Other mesh lawsuits allege that manufacturers mislead and failed to warn the FDA, physicians, patients and the general public. Along with complaints about the lack of adequate prior research and testing, failure to identify safe and effective mesh device removal was also cited.

    Contact Transvaginal Mesh Lawyers for a Free, Legal Consulation

    Like many other women who have suffered transvaginal mesh injuries, are you angry that manufacturers did not provide complete information about these products? If you have experienced health complications after trusting these companies to provide safe products, you may be entitled to compensation for your hardships. Contact us to schedule a free, confidential legal consultation.