The experience you need and the dedication you deserve
Turn to seasoned attorneys to protect you and your loved ones. Get the help you need now.
Many women who have given birth or are over the age of 50 experience some form of pelvic organ prolapse (a condition where one or more organs bulge into the vagina and can even protrude past the vaginal opening) or stress urinary incontinence (an involuntary leakage of urine during activities such as exercising, sneezing, coughing, etc.). As a result, many choose to undergo corrective surgery which can involve a transvaginal mesh product. Some of these devices have been found to be defective and can cause serious health issues, leaving patients worse off medically than if they had not undergone the surgeries.
Mesh erosion is one of the most common complications displayed in women who have used transvaginal mesh products. When erosion occurs, the mesh loses its integrity and can perforate (cause abnormal openings) into the bladder, bowel and other organs. Mesh erosion can also cause the implant to move into the lower urinary tract or protrude out of the body. Many women have suffered from urinary incontinence, permanent self-catheterization and frequent urinary tract infections due to urinary tract issues caused by the mesh. Other vaginal mesh sling side-effects include: permanent pain and disfigurement, vaginal scarring, pelvic bleeding and painful intercourse. Due to these severe complications, many women will be required to have corrective surgery to remove the defective mesh.
As of 2018, tens of thousands of lawsuits have been filed against C.R. Bard, American Medical Systems, Boston Scientific Corp., Johnson & Johnson’s Ethicon, Coloplast, Covidien, Cook Medical and other vaginal mesh manufacturers. The Potts Law Firm founder, Derek H. Potts, has served in leadership positions for many of these national litigations, and has been a Liaison Counsel in every single federal transvaginal mesh product MDL.
Mr. Potts served as Plaintiffs’ Liaison Counsel/Co Lead Counsel of the Mentor OB Tape MDL in Columbus, Georgia, Plaintiffs’ Co Lead Counsel of the Bard Pelvic Mesh MDL in Charleston, West Virginia, and leader of the bellwether trial team for the Kugel Mesh MDL, where he was also a member of the Plaintiffs’ Steering committee in Providence, Rhode Island. As member of the Plaintiffs’ Steering Committee, Mr. Potts helped oversee the entire litigation process and guided plaintiff litigation, coordinating the large number of lawsuits pending before the Judge. Mr. Potts has also been a speaker for the American Urogynecologic Society; educating physicians interested in or practicing Female Pelvic Medicine or Reconstructive Surgery concerning mesh legal issues. His insight helped physicians provide optimal care and informed consent to their patients.
There is no firm better equipped to handle your vaginal mesh claim than The Potts Law Firm. We have the resources and knowledge to evaluate your vaginal mesh case both legally and medically with our staff of highly accredited vaginal mesh lawyers, medical directors and physicians. If you or a woman you know are concerned about defective transvaginal mesh, call us toll free at 1-888-902-6245 for a free consultation to discuss your case.
- Mesh erosion
- Corrective surgeries to removal defective mesh
- Permanent pain
- Permanent disfigurement
- Self-catheterization for life
- Painful intercourse
- Urinary tract infection
- Pelvic bleeding
- Bladder/Bowel perforation
- Urinary incontinence
- Vaginal scarring
At The Potts Law Firm, we can evaluate your vaginal mesh case both legally and medically. Our on-site medical director will review your medical records, product information, and other treatment records to help determine if your injuries could lead to a compensable claim against a mesh manufacturer.
- AMS: Apogee, Perigee, MiniArc and SPARC
- C.R. Bard/Covidien: Avaulta, PelviLace, and Pelvicol
- Boston Scientific: Advantage, Obtryx, Repliform, and Xenform
- Ethicon Mesh Products: Gynecare, Ultrapro, Prolene
Derek H. Potts currently serves as a member of the Executive Committee for the plaintiffs in transvaginal mesh consolidated litigation, including In Re C.R. Bard, Inc., Pelvic Repair System Products Liability Litigation, MDL Case No. 2187; In Re American Medical Systems, Inc., Pelvic Repair System Products Liability Litigation, MDL Case No. 2325; In Re Boston Scientific Corp., Pelvic Repair System Products Liability Litigation, MDL Case No. 2326; In Re Ethicon, Inc., Pelvic Repair System Products Liability Litigation, MDL Case No. 2327; In Re Coloplast Corp., Pelvic Repair System Products Liability Litigation, MDL Case No. 2387; In Re Cook Medical Inc., Pelvic Repair System Products Liability Litigation, MDL Case No. 2440; and In Re Neomedic Pelvic Repair System Products Liability Litigation, MDL Case No. 2511. He is also Plaintiffs’ co-lead counsel in the CR Bard and Neomedic MDLs.
The answer to this question depends on the materials used for the transvaginal mesh product and the type of mesh surgery that you had, as some transvaginal products have a higher risk of injury or incident rate. For example, transvaginal mesh products that use polypropylene plastic material rather than a biologic tissue mesh have an increased risk of injury. These devices have been shown to cause mesh erosion, urinary infections, perforation of nearby organs, permanent pain, or even a need for corrective surgery to remove the mesh implant. In 2016, the FDA strengthened its warning level for pelvic organ prolapse (“POP”) surgical mesh, and they specifically stated that these new warnings do not apply to surgical mesh for stress urinary incontinence (“SUI”). Despite the FDA’s comments, women who were implanted with either POP or SUI surgical mesh continue to suffer many of the same injuries. We advise that you allow our team to evaluate your case if you ever had any of these transvaginal mesh procedures.
In the 1990s, Boston Scientific introduced the first vaginally implanted mesh to treat prolapse, ProteGen. A few years later, the company voluntarily recalled about 20,000 of these devices on the basis that they caused discomfort, painful sex, and an erosion of vaginal and surrounding tissue.
In 2012, the FDA ordered 33 makers of transvaginal mesh products to conduct testing on patient outcomes and report all complications stemming from the use of their products.
In July 2014, the FDA refused to ban U.S. sales of transvaginal mesh products, despite a petition filed by Public Citizen’s Health Research Group asking the FDA to recall and discontinue selling all transvaginal mesh products.