Attorney Jessie Paluch, founder of TruLaw, has over 25 years of experience as a personal injury and mass tort attorney, and previously worked as an international tax attorney at Deloitte. Jessie collaborates with attorneys nationwide — enabling her to share reliable, up-to-date legal information with our readers.
This article has been written and reviewed for legal accuracy and clarity by the team of writers and legal experts at TruLaw and is as accurate as possible. This content should not be taken as legal advice from an attorney. If you would like to learn more about our owner and experienced injury lawyer, Jessie Paluch, you can do so here.
TruLaw does everything possible to make sure the information in this article is up to date and accurate. If you need specific legal advice about your case, contact us by using the chat on the bottom of this page. This article should not be taken as advice from an attorney.
Essure, a permanent birth control device comprised of tiny metal coils that are implanted in the fallopian tubes, has spurred thousands of complaints and may soon be the subject of an Essure class action lawsuit in Canada.
Today, the U.S. shields multinational corporations from federal class actions like this based on a court’s interpretation of the “Pre-market Approval Process” by the FDA.
Congress is currently considering allowing lawsuits to move forward in state courts under H.R. 2164, the Medical Device Safety Act of 2017.
A class action lawsuit was filed at the Court of Queen’s Bench for Saskatchewan in October 2015 against Bayer, the manufacturer of Essure, and more than 100 Canadian women have allegedly expressed interest in joining the suit.
Those familiar with the lawsuit expect the class action to be certified by a judge later this year, according to a Toronto Star report.
Patients who are harmed by high-risk devices should have the opportunity to show causation in court as these women are looking to do in Canada.
In Canada, where Essure has been on the market since 2001, the law allows for a day in court.
Despite thousands of women taking to the street in rallies, hitting the halls of Congress to speak to legislators and presenting their injuries to the FDA, today the law of the land is one that protects large multinational corporations but does not protect patients.
In the U.S., medical device manufacturers are shielded from legal liability for personal injury if their device came to market through the FDA’s stringent but controversial premarket approval (PMA) process, which requires companies to prove the safety and efficacy of a device before it can be sold.
This controversial corporate immunity shield is being threatened with H.R. 2164, the Medical Device Safety Act of 2017.
This bi-partisan act seeks to remove the legal barrier for patients harmed by dangerous medical devices by allowing them the legal right to seek compensation if they are not adequately warned of the risks of using the device.
Although Bayer markets Essure as an effective, affordable and convenient means of birth control, many women who have been implanted with the device have reported severe life-changing complications that bring into question Bayer’s claims.
A grassroots movement of advocates that call themselves E-Sisters has been collecting a list of complications reported by women in an effort to get accurate information out to the public.
They believe their grassroots effort to collect this information is much more accurate than the FDA’s Adverse Event Reporting System (FAERS) as the FAERS database is generally acknowledged to underreport the incidence of adverse effects by around 10 fold.
The side effects reported by E-Sisters are pages long and tracked on their website, Essure Problems.
These complications include gynecological, gastrointestinal, neurological, blood issues, autoimmune disorders, sensitivities, and pain of many kinds.
In addition, women on Essure have doubted its effectiveness and there are a number of premature births and miscarriages reported.
Some women have died and their families believe it was related to the Essure implant.
Women with Essure also have a higher risk of ectopic pregnancies.
Women in the U.S. will be watching to see how the Canadian Essure Class Action moves forward and we will continue to update the movement of H.R. 2164, the Medical Device Safety Act of 2017.
Experienced Attorney & Legal SaaS CEO
With over 25 years of legal experience, Jessie is an Illinois lawyer, a CPA, and a mother of three. She spent the first decade of her career working as an international tax attorney at Deloitte.
In 2009, Jessie co-founded her own law firm with her husband – which has scaled to over 30 employees since its conception.
In 2016, Jessie founded TruLaw, which allows her to collaborate with attorneys and legal experts across the United States on a daily basis. This hypervaluable network of experts is what enables her to share reliable legal information with her readers!
Here, at TruLaw, we’re committed to helping victims get the justice they deserve.
Alongside our partner law firms, we have successfully collected over $3 Billion in verdicts and settlements on behalf of injured individuals.
Would you like our help?
At TruLaw, we fiercely combat corporations that endanger individuals’ well-being. If you’ve suffered injuries and believe these well-funded entities should be held accountable, we’re here for you.
With TruLaw, you gain access to successful and seasoned lawyers who maximize your chances of success. Our lawyers invest in you—they do not receive a dime until your lawsuit reaches a successful resolution!
Do you believe you’re entitled to compensation?
Use our Instant Case Evaluator to find out in as little as 60 seconds!
AFFF Lawsuit claims are being filed against manufacturers of aqueous film-forming foam (AFFF), commonly used in firefighting.
Claims allege that companies such as 3M, DuPont, and Tyco Fire Products failed to adequately warn users about the potential dangers of AFFF exposure — including increased risks of various cancers and diseases.
Suboxone Tooth Decay Lawsuit claims are being filed against Indivior, the manufacturer of Suboxone, a medication used to treat opioid addiction.
Claims allege that Indivior failed to adequately warn users about the potential dangers of severe tooth decay and dental injuries associated with Suboxone’s sublingual film version.
Social Media Harm Lawsuits are being filed against social media companies for allegedly causing mental health issues in children and teens.
Claims allege that companies like Meta, Google, ByteDance, and Snap designed addictive platforms that led to anxiety, depression, and other mental health issues without adequately warning users or parents.
Transvaginal Mesh Lawsuits are being filed against manufacturers of transvaginal mesh products used to treat pelvic organ prolapse (POP) and stress urinary incontinence (SUI).
Claims allege that companies like Ethicon, C.R. Bard, and Boston Scientific failed to adequately warn about potential dangers — including erosion, pain, and infection.
Bair Hugger Warming Blanket Lawsuits involve claims against 3M — alleging their surgical warming blankets caused severe infections and complications (particularly in hip and knee replacement surgeries).
Plaintiffs claim 3M failed to warn about potential risks — despite knowing about increased risk of deep joint infections since 2011.
Baby Formula NEC Lawsuit claims are being filed against manufacturers of cow’s milk-based baby formula products.
Claims allege that companies like Abbott Laboratories (Similac) and Mead Johnson & Company (Enfamil) failed to warn about the increased risk of necrotizing enterocolitis (NEC) in premature infants.
Here, at TruLaw, we’re committed to helping victims get the justice they deserve.
Alongside our partner law firms, we have successfully collected over $3 Billion in verdicts and settlements on behalf of injured individuals.
Would you like our help?