A woman filed a transvaginal mesh lawsuit against the manufacturers of the pelvic mesh in West Virginia federal court alleging products liability.

Plaintiff Susan S. files the transvaginal mesh lawsuit against C.R. Bard, Inc. purporting products liability allegations. The plaintiff’s case is filed as part of an MDL, or large multidistrict litigation, centered on allegations that the pelvic mesh causes severe adverse health effects and a negative immune response.

According to the transvaginal mesh lawsuit, the case maintains that C.R. Bard failed to properly study the serious side effects that may result because of the mesh’s implantation into the female pelvis.

The transvaginal mesh product is inserted into a female pelvis to help treat pelvic organ prolapse (POP), the medical condition wherein a pelvic organ, such as the bladder, “drops” or prolapses from its normal place located in the lower belly and then pushes against the vaginal wall. According to reports, such a condition may occur when the pelvic organ becomes weak or stretched from either surgery or childbirth.

The pelvic mesh product, according to the transvaginal mesh lawsuit, also helps treat conditions such as stress urinary incontinence, which may occur when a physical activity, such as a cough, sneeze, or the lifting of heavy objects, or running, adds “stress” or pressure on the bladder. This can then result in stress urinary incontinence, or SUI.

According to the transvaginal mesh lawsuit, the defendants are being accused of inadequately informing the public and medical community of serious adverse health effects that may occur due to the pelvic mesh product, like adhesion or allergic reactions.

The plaintiff alleges that the product is made of a monofilament polypropylene and collagen. However, because of these materials, the pelvic mesh’s implantation can allegedly cause health complications and, moreover, a negative immune response.

The complaint contends that the specific material of which the pelvic mesh is composed of is allegedly incompatible with human tissue. According to the transvaginal mesh lawsuit, the product results in, “degradation or fragmentation over time…” and that this response, “causes a chronic inflammatory and fibrotic reaction… [which] results in continuing injury over time.”

The transvaginal mesh lawsuit contends that reactions to the products include, “hyper-inflammatory responses to collagen leading to problems including chronic pain and fibrotic reaction.”

Allegedly, there are severe adverse tissue reactions that result because of the collagen in the product and that post product insertion the mesh tends to disintegrate in the female pelvis. Such a reaction allegedly causes severe pain, discomfort, and other unfavorable reactions.

The transvaginal mesh lawsuit refers to a Safety Communication published by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration in July 2011. The FDA stated that“serious complications associated with surgical mesh for transvaginal repair of POP are not rare.”

Susan’s Transvaginal Mesh Lawsuit is Case No. 2:17-cv-03595, in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of West Virginia. The Transvaginal Mesh MDL is In re: C.R. Bard, Inc., Pelvic Repair System Products Liability Litigation, MDL No. 2187, in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of West Virginia.