Transvaginal Mesh Lawsuits | Pelvic Mesh Lawsuit Settlements

Transvaginal Mesh Lawsuits Name Both AMS and Endo as Defendants

Shay Morrigan | February 9th, 2012

Illinois resident Beverly Jacobs, represented by her vaginal mesh lawyer, joined other women who have filed transvaginal mesh lawsuits on January 31, 2012, when she submitted her complaint to the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania. Jacobs alleges injury from surgical mesh made by American Medical Systems (AMS). Jacobs joins the ranks of plaintiffs across the country seeking pelvic mesh lawsuit settlements to compensate for medical costs, pain, and suffering.

Jacobs and her vaginal mesh lawyer have named both AMS and Endo Pharmaceuticals as defendants, as Endo acquired AMS in 2011, and is therefore liable for injuries related to AMS mesh devices.

Transvaginal mesh lawsuits the result of serious side effects

Many women who have filed transvaginal mesh lawsuits underwent mesh surgery to help repair pelvic organ prolapse (POP) and/or stress urinary incontinence (SUI). Both of these conditions involve pelvic muscles that have grown too stretched and weak to adequately support pelvic organs like the bladder, uterus, and bowel. Mesh products are intended to help hold these organs in place.

Unfortunately, some of these surgeries with mesh cause serious side effects that lead women to file transvaginal mesh lawsuits. Within months after her initial implant procedure, which involved the AMS Monarc Subfacial Hammock System, Jacobs claims to have experienced complications from the mesh, including mesh erosion, hardening, chronic pain, and worsening urination.

As with other plaintiffs seeking pelvic mesh lawsuit settlements, Jacobs demands damages to help pay for the additional serious surgery she requires to repair these problems.

Vaginal mesh lawyer notes warnings from World Health Organization and FDA

Jacob’s vaginal mesh lawyer notes that in 2004, the World Health Organization reported that mesh repairs had unacceptably high rates of complications, and recommended the systems not be used until more clinical trials were completed.

Many transvaginal mesh lawsuits also note the July 13, 2011 FDA safety communication about vaginal mesh, which stated that complications with the repair were not rare, and that surgeries to repair those complications may not always be successful.

Jacobs and her vaginal mesh lawyer are suing for failure to warn, defective design and manufacture, negligence, breach of warranties, fraud, and more. Mr. Jacobs is also suing for loss of consortium.

The plaintiffs hope for pelvic mesh lawsuit settlements to cover medical, hospital, and incidental expenses, as well as for loss of earnings and earning capacity.