LAKE FOREST, CA (PRWEB) August 24, 2013
“We're currently accepting new clients who are filing products liability claims after allegedly suffering as a result of a transvaginal mesh implant. Thousands of women received these implants, yet many allege they were never sufficiently warned of the risks. What's more, some devices, like C.R. Bard's Avaulta Plus transvaginal mesh product, were never even tested on live humans!” explained Attorney David Meldofsky, of the Lake Forest, California-based firm, DNM Law Group, P.C.
In Donna Cisson v. C.R. Bard, testimony revealed that executives from Bard knew the mesh devices were made of plastic deemed unsuitable for human implantation and hid the problems from doctors and women who used the products. Many women would likely not have used the products if they were sufficiently warned of the known dangers associated with these products.
Transvaginal mesh implants, which are sometimes called pelvic mesh or mesh bladder slings, have been utilized since the 1990s to treat several fairly commonplace conditions. Pelvic organ prolapse occurs when there's a tear or weak point in the structures that hold the pelvic organs in the proper location; as a result, the organs shift out of an anatomically-correct position. This condition is most common in women who have undergone a hysterectomy.
Stress urinary incontinence is another common condition that's typically treated with transvaginal mesh implants, which hold the bladder in an anatomically-proper position. This effectively reduces the incidence of accidental urination during exercise or while laughing, or coughing.
The U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) issued a formal warning about the safety of transvaginal mesh implants in 2008; a second warning was issued in July of 2011, following the result of a study that revealed the true extent of the medical risks associated with these implants. Patients have suffered a wide array of different complications due to pelvic mesh implants, including infection, erosion and damage to surrounding organs and tissues, pain during intercourse, damage to the vaginal canal and even recurrence of the original condition that the implant was intended to treat.
Many patients have had to undergo multiple surgeries and thousands suffer with permanent, chronic pain and disability due to the alleged damage that has resulted from transvaginal mesh implants.
“We're here to help women who have suffered these severe after-effects. We understand how profoundly your life has been impacted by these medical implants and we're here to help you get the compensation you deserve for your pain and suffering, medical expenses, lost wages and other damages,” Attorney Meldofsky explained, adding, “Sadly, some women have even died due to complications. In these cases, we're here to assist surviving family members.”
DNM Law Group, P.C. has established a website that features the latest news and updates concerning transvaginal mesh-related injury and the personal injury lawsuits that are now moving forward in these cases. To learn more, visit: http://www.meshlawsuits.info
Contact Attorney David Meldofsky, of DNM Law Group, P.C. by calling 877-274-8672.
The Bard cases are In re C.R. Bard Inc. Pelvic Repair System Products Liability Litigation, 2:10-md-02187, and Donna Cisson’s case is Cisson v. C.R. Bard Inc., 2:11-cv-00195, U.S. District Court, Southern District of West Virginia (Charleston). The American Medical Systems Inc. cases are In re American Medical Systems Pelvic Repair Systems Liability Litigation, 2:12-md-2325, U.S. District Court, Southern District of West Virginia (Charleston). The Boston Scientific Corp. cases are In re Boston Scientific Corp. Pelvic Repair Product Liability Litigation, 2:12-md-2326, U.S. District Court, Southern District of West Virginia (Charleston). The 2008, 2011 FDA warnings can be read here: http://www.fda.gov/medicaldevices/safety/alertsandnotices/ucm262435.htm