ObTape Complaint Joins Transvaginal Mesh Lawsuits in Georgia
A North Carolina woman filed a pelvic mesh lawsuit in Minnesota on October 19, 2012. She named as defendant mesh manufacturer Mentor Worldwide, LLC. On October 30, 2012, Mentor submitted a notice of removal to transfer the case to federal court in the U.S. District Court for the District of Minnesota.
The plaintiff claims that she suffered serious injuries after she was implanted with a mesh product made by Mentor. She and her husband seek in excess of $75,000 in damages. On November 20, 2012, the case was again transferred to the current Mentor ObTape MDL in the Middle District of Georgia, where numerous other claims against the device manufacturers are pending.
Transvaginal mesh attorney states facts of the case
According to the transvaginal mesh attorney in this case, the plaintiff had her Mentor ObTape transobturator sling implanted on August 3, 2004 in an effort to remedy stress urinary incontinence. The sling is intended to replace eroded or weakened muscles in the urethra, serving as a sort of hammock for the vaginal wall thereby reinforcing the muscles that control the flow of urine, and reducing symptoms of incontinence.
However, this plaintiff enjoyed no such relief but rather reported injuries including including device extrusion, urinary tract erosion, vaginal pain, vaginal discharge, and infections. The plaintiff believes these injuries are the direct result of a design defect in the product itself.
A 2006 study published in the Journal of Urology followed 67 patients implanted with the device. A total of 9 of those patients had vaginal extrusions, while 8 had a history of persistent vaginal discharge. Like the plaintiff, each was taken back to the operating room for mesh removal.
Transvaginal mesh lawsuits centralized in Georgia
Many other transvaginal mesh lawsuits have been filed against Mentor with similar complaints about the ObTape. In December 2008, the U.S. Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation (JPML) consolidated all federal cases into the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Georgia.
The plaintiff brings counts of negligence, breach of warranties, and failure to warn. Her husband claims loss of consortium.