Follow us on
Twitter and
Facebook for the latest Vaginal Mesh Class Action Lawsuit News!
Couple Sues Ethicon & Boston Scientific Over Vaginal Mesh Injuries
By Sarah Pierce
An Alabama woman has filed a vaginal mesh injury lawsuit against the manufacturers of two defective transvaginal mesh devices she was implanted with — both of which failed, leaving her with severe and permanent injuries. She is seeking damages from Ethicon, Inc. and Boston Scientific Corporation to cover her medical expenses, pain and suffering. Her husband is also suing for loss of consortium. Her case joins hundreds of defective vaginal mesh lawsuits filed against the companies in recent years.
The Plaintiff alleges in the vaginal mesh injury lawsuit that she was implanted with an Ethicon vaginal mesh device on February 6, 2008, and later implanted with a product manufactured by Boston Scientific on November 8, 2010 to treat her stress urinary incontinence (SUI) and pelvic organ prolapse (POP). Both of these transvaginal mesh devices failed, causing her suffer severe and permanent bodily injuries and significant mental and physical pain and suffering. She was forced to undergo corrective surgery and hospitalization to treat the injuries caused by the defective Ethicon and Boston Scientific vaginal mesh devices.
According to her vaginal mesh lawsuit, evidence exists that the polypropylene material in vaginal mesh products is “biologically incompatible with human tissue and promotes a negative immune response in a large subset of the population.” The lawsuit goes on to state that this response creates inflammation of the pelvic tissues, which can push against the mesh and cause tissue to grow inside the tiny holes of the mesh. Vaginal mesh products are also unreasonably susceptible to shrinkage, contraction and “creep,” or the gradual elongation and deformation of the mesh when subject to long periods of tension inside the body. This can cause vaginal mesh erosion into the surrounding tissue, the lawsuit says.
Vaginal mesh products like those manufactured by Ethicon (a subsidiary of Johnson & Johnson) and Boston Scientific are designed to repair symptoms such as stress urinary incontinence and pelvic organ prolapse that are caused by the weakening of a woman’s pelvic muscles due to multiple childbirths, surgery or menopause. In 2001, however, the FDA warned that vaginal mesh complications were not rare, and often required numerous corrective surgeries to address vaginal mesh side effects.
Vaginal mesh side effects reported in hundreds of lawsuits include: painful intercourse, vaginal mesh erosion, urinary problems, pelvic organ prolapse, vaginal scarring, perforated organs, infection, organ injuries, and more. Plaintiffs in vaginal mesh lawsuits often allege the manufacturers knew of these possible vaginal mesh side effects but failed to disclose them to the public. In the case of the Alabama Plaintiff’s lawsuit, she is accusing Ethicon and Boston Scientific of negligence, manufacturing defect, failure to warn, and breach of warranties, and alleges the companies knew or should have known that they exposed patients to the risk of serious harm. Her husband is suing for loss of consortium — a legal term for the loss of companionship and inability to have normal marital relations due to an injury or mental distress caused by a defendant’s wrongdoing. Loss of consortium claims can result in hundreds of thousands — and in some cases millions of dollars — in damages for spouses.
If you suffered a vaginal mesh side effect or complication caused by a defective device manufactured by Ethicon, Boston Scientific or other vaginal mesh manufacturer, you may have a claim for compensation for your medical expenses, pain and suffering, and/or loss of consortium. A vaginal mesh injury specialist can provide a free consultation about your case and guide you through the process.
We tell you about cash you can claim EVERY WEEK! Sign up for our free newsletter.
All medical device, dangerous drug and medical class action and lawsuit news updates are listed in the Drug and Medical Device section of Top Class Actions.
Various Trademarks held by their respective owners.