Bowling Green, Kentucky (PRWEB) July 18, 2012
Together in the state of Kentucky, Hughes and Coleman, filed ten lawsuits against Pelvic Mesh Product Manufacturers. Below if a breakdown of the ten lawsuits and claims involved.
Plaintiff v. Kimberly Ferguson, Plaintiffs, v. C.R. Bard, Inc., Tissue Science Laboratories Limited, Defendants.
Plaintiffs v. Johnson & Johnson, Ethicon, Inc., Ethicon Women’s Health and Urology, Gynecare Boston Scientific Corporation (D/B/A Mansfield Scientific, Inc. & Mircovasive, Inc. Defendants.
Plaintiffs v. Johnson & Johnson, Ethicon, Inc., Ethicon Women’s Health and Urology, Gynecare Coloplast A/S Coloplast Corp., Colorplast Manufacturing US, LLC, Defendants.
Plaintiffs, v. Johnson & Johnson, Ethicon, Inc. Ethicon Women’s Health and Urology, Gynecare, American Medical Systems, Inc., Endo Pharmaceuticals., Defendants.
Plaintiff v. American Medical Systems, Inc. Endo Pharmaceuticals, Defendants.
Plaintiffs v. Boston Scientific Corporation (D/B/A Mansfield Scientific, Inc. & Mircovasive, Inc.) Defendants.
Plaintiffs v.Boston Scientific Corporation (D/B/A Mansfield Scientific, Inc. & Mircovasive, Inc., Defendants.
Plaintiffs v. Boston Scientific Corporation (D/B/A Mansfield Scientific, Inc. & Mircovasive, Inc.), Johnson & Johnson, Ethicon, Inc. Ethicon Women’s Health and Urology, Gynecare, Defendants
Plaintiffs v. Boston Scientific Corporation (D/B/A Mansfield Scientific, Inc. & Mircovasive, Inc.), Defendants
Plaintiffs v. American Medical Systems, Inc. Endo Pharmaceuticals, Defendants.
Each of these Plaintiffs received the Pelvic Mesh Product to treat the Plaintiff for stress urinary incontinence and/or pelvic organ prolapse. According to court documents, as a result of the implantation of this Pelvic Mesh Product the Plaintiffs suffered serious injuries including but not limited to; extreme pain, vaginal erosion, dyspareunia, abdominal and pelvic pain, recurrence of incontinence, additional surgery and/or other surgeries. It’s suspected that if not for the implantation of these Pelvic Mesh Products, manufactured by the Defendants, the Plaintiffs would not have suffered from the metal and physical anguish and permanent injuries that they did.
The Defendants, listed above, were engaged in the business of placing of designing, manufacturing, marketing, packaging, labeling and selling such devices as those listed in the lawsuits above. These products are implanted in women who suffer from pelvic organ prolapse or stress urinary incontinence. The vaginal mesh product is inserted to support the structure of the vagina wall and hold the woman’s organs in place.
According to the Food and Drug Administration, "The most frequent complications included erosion through vaginal epithelium, infection, pain, urinary problems, and recurrence of prolapse and/or incontinence. There were also reports of bowel, bladder, and blood vessel perforation during insertion. In some cases, vaginal scarring and mesh erosion led to a significant decrease in patient quality of life due to discomfort and pain."
About Hughes & Coleman Injury Lawyers
Hughes & Coleman is committed to providing excellent, efficient legal services and achieving outstanding results in Kentucky. In additional to handling all types of personal injury claims the firm handles; Social Security Disability, Workers’ Compensation, Defective Medical Devices, Defective Drugs, Nursing Home Abuse and Neglect. The firm’s goal is to develop and maintain long-term, mutually beneficial attorney-client relationships. Co-founders J. Marshall Hughes and Lee L. Coleman are both accomplished injury attorneys with strong ties to the community and are members of various civic and professional organizations. Hughes & Coleman has offices in Bowling Green, Louisville, Lexington and Elizabethtown, Kentucky. To learn more, visit http://www.HughesAndColeman.com. THIS IS AN ADVERTISEMENT. COURT COSTS AND CASE EXPENSES ARE THE RESPONSIBLITY OF THE CLIENT IF WE WIN YOUR CASE. Services may be performed by others. Pharmaceutical cases likely to be referred.