Ariz. Woman Sues Vaginal Mesh Companies for Pain & Suffering

Arizona plaintiff Constance Garrett is the latest woman to join the expanding litigation involving vaginal mesh complications after she discovered that the medical device she received to treat her pelvic organ prolapse (POP) and incontinence had severely injured her. Garrett filed her vaginal mesh lawsuit on Sept. 30, 2013.

A number of companies qualify under the vaginal mesh multidistrict litigation, but Garrett is one of the victims who is suing a diverse range of the device makers— her vaginal mesh lawsuit is against Ethicon Inc., Ethicon LLC, Johnson & Johnson, and American Medical Systems.

The other companies which qualify for vaginal mesh litigation include Boston Scientific Corporation, CR Bard (The Bard), Sofradim Production SAS, Tissue Science Laboratories Limited, Mentor Worldwide and Coloplast Corp. In Garrett’s case, she was implanted with the Prolift device, although there are also a variety of devices which victims say are faulty and may qualify someone to join the vaginal mesh MDL.

These device include the Prolift +M, Gynemesh/Gynemesh PS, Prosima, TVT, TVT-Obturator, TVT-SECUR, TVT-Exact, TVT-Abbrevo and many others. While these are all different devices, they have the same allegedly faulty issue. They’re made of hard materials which have a tendency to become embedded in flesh and tissue. Designed to be fit close to the vaginal and/or bladder walls, a close eye must be kept on vaginal mesh implants to ensure they don’t start to seep into the fragile, soft tissue nearby.

In some cases, the women may not even notice any discomfort while this is happening. Sometimes it’s too late, and numerous surgeries are required in an attempt to remove the vaginal mesh piece by piece. However, in some cases, not all pieces can be removed. The subsequent scarring, which is irreparable in this location, can lead to permanent infertility, lifelong pain and suffering, and in some cases the inability for women to ever have pleasurable sex again. There are cases where both husband and wife blame a faulty vaginal mesh for their divorce.

Vaginal Mesh Lawsuits Grow

If a vaginal mesh victim is married, her spouse may also qualify to file a vaginal mesh complaint for loss of consortium. When one partner suffers, the other one is naturally impacted, too. C

omplementing the Prolift, Garrett also received the American Medical Systems’ Monarch Transobturator Sling, another device which qualifies. She had the devices implanted on Aug. 11, 2006 by a doctor at the Havasu Regional Medical Center in Lake Havasu City. Initially, the implantation seemed to be successful, but they often are at first. It takes some time for these devices to start chewing into nearby tissue and organs. Garrett hasn’t yet revealed the extent of the damage or whether or not she will lead a full life after the removal of the devices. Some women don’t notice any pain at all, even though the device is causing irreversible damage.

Garrett has filed a vaginal mesh claim citing numerous counts including negligence, manufacturing defect, failure to warn, defective product, design defect, common law fraud, fraudulent concealment, constructive fraud, negligent misrepresentation, negligent infliction of emotional distress, breach of warranties, violation of consumer protection laws, gross negligence, unjust enrichment, punitive damages and discovery toll and ruling.

Although she is joining a vaginal mesh MDL, she will still receive an individual trial by jury. The only difference is that she will enjoy a faster trial, resulting in a win-win situation for everyone involved since the same basic facts, such as the history of her particular vaginal mesh’s approval by government agencies, won’t need to be presented.

Vaginal Mesh Victims Band Together

Garrett shares many similarities with other vaginal mesh victims. The foundational facts are the same, such as the history of the companies and the purpose of vaginal meshes. Individual lawsuits can take a lot of time re-establishing the facts which everyone agrees to. In Garrett’s case, she’s suffered enough and spending months in court for the most basic of things isn’t going to help her recovery process.

However, by joining a vaginal mesh MDL, Garrett will have a speedier trial while still having her situation looked at closely. It’s rare that a mutually beneficial tactic can be found in court, but MDLs are the exception. When patients have already undergone a nightmare experience, it’s best if they can get a fair trial without jumping through extra hoops.

Help for Victims of Vaginal Mesh Complications

If you had revision surgery to repair damage caused by vaginal mesh, or you have surgery scheduled, you may be able to take legal action against the device manufacturer. These companies have already paid out millions of dollars in vaginal mesh lawsuit settlements and are continuing to settle cases. Don’t delay – see if you qualify to pursue compensation for medical bills, pain and suffering, and other damages by filling out the short form at the Transvaginal Mesh, Bladder Sling Class Action Lawsuit Investigation.