Transvaginal Mesh Lawsuit Filed on Behalf of Woman Allegedly Injured by Johnson & Johnson’s Gynecare Gynemesh Transvaginal Mesh Product

Share Article

Litigation Involving Transvaginal Mesh Devices Marketed by Johnson & Johnson and other Manufacturers is Moving Forward. Gilman Law LLP Urges Victims of Transvaginal Mesh Injuries to Seek Legal Counsel Immediately, as Such Claims are Subject to Strict Statutes of Limitations. Transvaginal Mesh Victims Who Fail to Act Quickly May Lose the Opportunity to Recover Compensation from the Manufacturers of these Devices.

transvaginal placement of mesh device systems could lead to potentially serious complications including erosion of the material, infection, pain, urinary complications, and recurrence of prolapse of incontinence.

Gilman Law LLP has filed a lawsuit on behalf of a Missouri woman who suffered severe complications following implantation of Johnson & Johnson’s Gynecare Gynemesh transvaginal mesh device. The transvaginal mesh lawsuit, which was filed in U.S. District Court, District of New Jersey, alleges the Plaintiff sustained severe and permanent bodily injuries and other damages due the defective design of the Gynemesh transvaginal mesh product and negligence on the part of Johnson & Johnson and other named Defendants (Case No. ATL-L-5728-12).

According to the complaint, the Plaintiff received the Gynecare Gynemesh device in the manner for which it was intended for treatment of pelvic organ prolapse and/or stress urinary incontinence. In October 2011, due to the allegedly defective nature of the Gynemesh transvaginal mesh product, the Plaintiff was forced undergo a second surgery to perform a paravaginal dissection and to remove the Gynemesh product from the anterior vaginal wall and the paravaginal tissues. In April of 2012, again due to the Defendants’ allegedly defective product, she had to undergo a third surgery. The complaint alleges that the Plaintiff suffered tremendously prior to, through and after the surgeries, and experienced pain and suffering that no one should have to endure.

According to the lawsuit, the U.S. Food & Drug Administration (FDA) issued a public health notification in October 2008 to the medical community that transvaginal placement of mesh device systems could lead to potentially serious complications including erosion of the material, infection, pain, urinary complications, and recurrence of prolapse or incontinence. In July 2011, the agency warned, among other things, that “serious complications associated with surgical mesh for transvaginal repair of POP are not rare.” This was a change from what the FDA previously reported in October 2008.
http://www.fda.gov/medicaldevices/safety/alertsandnotices/publichealthnotifications/ucm061976.htm

Johnson & Johnson and its Ethicon unit are currently facing hundreds of lawsuits over its Gynecare Gynemesh transvaginal mesh product, as well as other Gynecare devices, including Prolift, Prolift+ M, TVT Secur and Prosima surgical meshes. Most of those complaints are pending in the Ethicon Inc. Pelvic Repair System Product Liability Litigation, MDL No. 2327, now underway in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of West Virginia (Charleston). In June, Ethicon informed the judge overseeing the litigation that it would stop marketing the Gynecare Prolift, Prolift+ M, TVT Secur and Prosima surgical mesh devices. The Gynecare Gynemesh device will remain on the market, but its use will be restricted to abdominal surgeries only.
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-06-04/j-j-tells-judge-it-will-stop-selling-vaginal-mesh-implant.html

Consolidated litigations involving transvaginal mesh products marketed by C.R. Bard (MDL 2187), American Medical Systems (MDL 2325), and Boston Scientific (MDL 2326) are also pending in the Southern District of West Virginia. C.R. Bard will face its first trial in that litigation, involving its Avaulta mesh product, on February 5, 2013. In a California state trial that concluded on July 20, a California couple was awarded $5.5 million after the jury determined that the woman’s injuries were caused by Bard’s Avaulta Plus vaginal implant. Bard was ordered to pay $3.6 million to the Plaintiffs, while the surgeon who implanted the device was ordered to pay the remainder of the judgment.
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-05-02/bard-faces-first-federal-trial-over-vaginal-mesh-next-year-1-.html

Gilman Law LLP is providing free legal consultations to victims of transvaginal mesh injuries. The firm urges anyone who suffered serious complications following implantation of transvaginal mesh to treat pelvic organ prolapse or stress urinary incontinence to seek legal counsel immediately. Statues of limitations for filing transvaginal mesh lawsuits may soon expire in some states, and could jeopardize Plaintiffs’ ability to recover any compensation from the makers of these devices. For a free transvaginal mesh lawsuit consultation, please contact Gilman Law LLP by visiting Gilmanlawllp.com, or call Toll Free at 1-888-252-0048.

About Gilman Law LLP

Gilman Law LLP, a leading national law firm with offices in Florida and Massachusetts, has been recognized for delivering successful results to their clients across a broad range of claims stemming from consumer product injury, mass tort, and class action lawsuits. For over 32 years, the Gilman Law LLP team of highly experienced lawyers has earned renown for tireless work on behalf of their clients on many of today’s most challenging and important legal issues.

Contact:
Gilman Law LLP
Beachway Professional Center Tower
Suite 307
3301 Bonita Beach Road
Bonita Springs, FL 34134

Share article on social media or email:

View article via:

Pdf Print

Contact Author

Kenneth G. Gilman, Esq.

Consumer Protection attorneys
Follow us on
Visit website