Plaintiff Diane C. is the latest plaintiff to file a transvaginal mesh lawsuit over allegations that the implanted products are defective.

The transvaginal mesh lawsuit was filed against Coloplast Incorporated and alleges that the manufacturers of that product knew or should have known about the dangers of transvaginal mesh and its likely problems but failed to disclose these.

The transvaginal mesh lawsuit says that the product in question is the Restorelle mesh, which is a product targeted for women who have suffered from pelvic organ prolapse. Pelvic organ prolapse is a medical condition which causes one or more of a woman’s pelvic organs to drop from their normal position.

Unfortunately, many different kinds of mesh manufactured to treat women with this condition have been named in complaints or adverse event reports filed with the FDA.

These complaints allege that the types of mesh being made today are not compatible with human tissue. Although the initial implantation of the mesh might appear to be successful, over time, the patient feels the impacts of the mesh degrading or breaking down.

The Restorelle product named in the transvaginal mesh lawsuit includes a polypropylene monofilament mesh designed to treat POP. Warnings associated with the risks of pelvic mesh products were shared by the Food and Drug Administration in both 2008 and 2011 including the Restorelle mesh.

The transvaginal mesh lawsuit says that the defendants should have known that those products can unreasonably expose patients to the possibility of serious harm while conferring no specific benefits over alternatives that did not carry the same levels of risk.

The transvaginal mesh lawsuit says that one of the most significant problems and side effects with the Restorelle product is that once implanted in patients, the product itself is biologically incompatible with human tissue. This can cause a chronic inflammatory response and severe foreign body reaction, according to the transvaginal mesh lawsuit.

Furthermore, the lawsuit alleges that the product was unreasonably likely to degrade and fragment inside the body, cause problems with chronic wound healing, lead to the development of chronic infections around the mesh fibers, and encourage nerve entrapment in collagen scar formation.

The transvaginal mesh lawsuit says that the defendant should be held accountable because they downplayed the defects, dangers, disadvantages, and risks of the product and marketed these as effective and safe even though they knew that the product could cause severe medical problems or even catastrophic injuries.

The transvaginal mesh lawsuit points out that the use of polypropylene in the product can cause permanent and adverse reactions, including infections, intractable pain and recurrent erosions.

A patient who has side effects from transvaginal mesh might report these issues to her doctor. At that point, the physician might recommend total removal of the mesh, which can be next to impossible if the mesh has become adhered to nearby tissue in the body.

This Mesh Lawsuit is Case No. 5:18-cv-07474 in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, San Francisco Division.