Transvaginal Mesh Lawyers
Were You or a Loved One Injured by Defective Vaginal Mesh?
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.
Vaginal mesh sling side effects include:
- Permanent pain and disfigurement
- Vaginal scarring
- Pelvic bleeding
- Damage to nearby organs
- Erosion of the mesh
- Urinary tract problems, including continued or increased incontinence
- Painful intercourse
Due to these severe complications, many women will be required to have corrective surgery to remove the defective mesh.
If you or a loved one are concerned about defective transvaginal mesh, call (888) 420-1299 for a free consultation to discuss your case.
Many manufacturers of the product have faced, or are currently facing, legal action for the damages sustained by patients. One of the most prominent companies facing these issues is the Avaulta Anterior and Posterior Biosynthetic Support System made by C. R. Bard Inc., with about 9,000 Bard transvaginal mesh lawsuits currently pending in consolidated federal multidistrict litigation.
The first company to release the mesh, Boston Scientific, issued a recall on its devices only a few years after its release in the 1990s. However, mass studies and action on the devices has only come to a head in the last few years. 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 denied a ban on U.S. sales of transvaginal mesh products, despite a petition filed by Public Citizen’s Health Research Group asking for discontinued use and ban on the products.
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, GA; Plaintiffs’ Co-Lead Counsel of the Bard Pelvic Mesh MDL in Charleston, WV; 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, RI. 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 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.
Some of the most common injuries caused by defective transvaginal mesh include:
- Mesh erosion
- Permanent pain
- Permanent disfigurement
- Self-catheterization for life
- Painful intercourse
- Urinary tract infection
- Pelvic bleeding
- Bladder/Bowel perforation
- Urinary incontinence
- Vaginal scarring
- Corrective surgeries to removal defective mesh
If you or a loved one has been harmed as a result of defective transvaginal mesh from any manufacturer, contact Potts Law Firm today to arrange your free consultation.
Q:What Is the History Behind Transvaginal Mesh?
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 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.
Q:Which Transvaginal Mesh Products Are Considered Most Dangerous?
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 biological 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.
Q:What MDL Leadership Positions Is Derek Potts Currently Involved In?
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 the plaintiffs’ co-lead counsel in the CR Bard and Neomedic MDLs.
Q:What Are Some Common Transvaginal Mesh Manufacturers & Their Products That Qualify for Mesh Settlements?
- 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
“They were able to complete it in a timely manner and were great at keeping me up to date with communication throughout the entire process. I highly recommend using this law firm if the need arises.”- Stephen P.
“Michael Bins has been extremely helpful in helping us to navigate a situation with an insurance claim on a commercial property. He’s gone above and beyond in moving our case toward a positive resolution that we’re satisfied with.”- Theo C.
“They know the law from every angle, dig deep, and will not accept anything less than what was asked in the original suit. The Potts team never backed down until the case was settled in full.”- Molly H.