Covidien Mesh Lawsuit Update

The defective hernia mesh product lines at the center of thousands of Covidien hernia mesh lawsuits share a distinctive characteristic that sets them apart from competitors: their polyester construction.

Unlike industry leaders who primarily use polypropylene, Covidien chose polyester materials for many of their hernia mesh devices, receiving FDA approval through the controversial 510(k) fast-track process.

This regulatory pathway allowed Covidien to market products without human clinical trials by claiming “substantial equivalence” to existing devices, meaning serious design flaws only emerged after thousands of patients received implants through hernia mesh surgery.

Parietex Product Line and Associated Complications

The Parietex product family represents Covidien’s flagship hernia mesh line, first introduced with Parietex Composite Mesh receiving FDA 510(k) clearance in 1999.

Scientific evidence supporting these concerns dates back decades.

A 1998 study published in the Journal of the American Medical Association Surgery specifically warned against using polyester in synthetic mesh, concluding that multifilament polyester showed “incredibly high infection rates.”

Despite this warning, Covidien continued developing polyester-based mesh products alongside other hernia mesh companies.

The shift to monofilament polyester designs addressed some infection concerns but introduced new problems with tearing and mechanical failure, leading to pending hernia mesh lawsuits.

Litigation centers on the following Parietex mesh products:

• Parietex Composite Mesh (PCO): This original design combines three-dimensional polyester textile with an absorbable collagen film barrier intended to prevent adhesions to internal organs. However, medical experts have discovered the collagen coating often absorbs prematurely within 30 days, defeating its protective purpose and leaving organs exposed to direct mesh contact. The polyester base exhibits shrinkage rates of 30-50%, potentially causing the mesh to pull away from attachment points and create gaps where hernias can recur.
• Parietex Optimized Composite Mesh (PCOx): Marketed as an improvement over the original, this “next generation” product features an X-stitch textile design for supposedly better visibility and increased tear strength. Despite these modifications, the fundamental polyester construction problems persist. The optimized version still uses the same problematic collagen barrier that absorbs too quickly, and the large pore design intended to reduce infection risk may actually allow bacteria to penetrate more easily.
• Parietex ProGrip Self-Fixating Mesh: This innovative design incorporates thousands of micro-grips designed to eliminate the need for surgical tacks or sutures during inguinal hernia repair procedures. While marketed as reducing post-operative pain, these micro-grips can cause excessive scarring and make revision surgery extremely difficult. Surgeons report that the self-fixating mechanism creates such strong tissue adherence that safe removal becomes nearly impossible, leaving patients with permanent complications.
• Parietex Plug and Patch System: Designed specifically for ventral hernia repair and inguinal hernia repair (can be used for both left inguinal hernia repair and right inguinal hernia repair) – this two-component system requires precise placement on the first attempt. The plug component, when folded into its cone shape, has been reported to migrate from its intended position. The patch component suffers from the same polyester degradation issues as other Parietex products, with unsealed edges that allow fibers to unravel within the body.

According to FDA adverse event reports, Parietex products have generated numerous complications requiring surgical intervention.

One 2017 report documented a patient requiring panniculectomy because fat necrosis had grown onto the Parietex Composite mesh.

Another report described mesh with “a small hole, about a centimeter in diameter, in the center” discovered during revision surgery, demonstrating the material’s tendency to degrade compared to biologic mesh alternatives.

ProGrip, Symbotex, and Other Covidien Mesh Devices

Beyond the Parietex line, Covidien manufactures several other hernia mesh products now subject to litigation across active hernia mesh MDLs.

Covidien’s recall history reveals a pattern of limited, targeted actions rather than comprehensive safety measures.

In October 2018, the company recalled 7,333 units of Parietex Composite Parastomal Mesh after reports of mesh failure using the modified Sugarbaker repair technique.

The FDA classified this as a Class 2 recall, indicating products that “may cause temporary or medically reversible adverse health consequences.”

A second recall occurred in January 2021, affecting 129 units of Parietex Hydrophilic Anatomical Mesh due to packaging errors where left-side labels contained right-side products, prompting new hernia mesh lawsuits.

Beyond Parietex, several other Covidien products face legal challenges:

• ProGrip Laparoscopic Self-Fixating Mesh: While sharing the micro-grip technology with Parietex ProGrip, this laparoscopic version presents unique challenges similar to issues in the Bard hernia mesh MDL. The gripping mechanism, designed for minimally invasive procedures, can cause excessive tissue trauma when activated. Surgeons report difficulty controlling the deployment, sometimes resulting in mesh attaching to unintended tissues. The polyester construction exhibits the same degradation patterns seen in other Covidien products.
• Symbotex Composite Mesh: Featured prominently in the upcoming February 2026 bellwether trial, Symbotex represents Covidien’s attempt to address known polyester issues. Despite modifications, plaintiffs allege the collagen coating still resorbs prematurely, exposing organs to direct mesh contact. The Alabama plaintiff in the first bellwether case required small bowel resection after Symbotex complications, highlighting the severity of potential injuries seen in hernia mesh multidistrict litigation.
• Parietex Lightweight Monofilament Mesh: Marketed as addressing weight concerns of traditional mesh, this “lightweight” designation proves misleading compared to products in the Atrium hernia mesh MDL. The monofilament polyester construction, while reducing some infection risks associated with multifilament designs, creates new problems with mechanical strength. Reports indicate this mesh tears more easily during handling and after implantation, potentially requiring complete removal and replacement.
• Dextile Anatomical Mesh: Used primarily in laparoscopic procedures, this product line shares the polyester construction defects of other Covidien meshes unlike Bard’s polypropylene hernia mesh. The anatomical shaping, intended to conform to body contours, can actually increase stress points where tearing occurs.

If you or a loved one suffered severe complications from any Covidien mesh product, including infection, chronic pain, or required revision surgery, you may be eligible to seek compensation.

Contact TruLaw using the chat on this page to receive an instant case evaluation and determine whether you qualify to join others in filing a Transvaginal mesh lawsuit today.

While seemingly minor, such mislabeling can have serious surgical implications.

Plaintiffs’ attorneys argue these limited recalls demonstrate Covidien’s reluctance to acknowledge broader design defects affecting their entire polyester mesh line.

Unlike competitors who have withdrawn entire product lines through hernia mesh class action settlements, most Covidien mesh products remain available despite mounting evidence of complications.

The absence of comprehensive recalls doesn’t indicate safety—rather, it highlights the regulatory environment where hernia mesh manufacturers can continue selling products even as thousands of patients report serious injuries.

The ongoing litigation seeks to accomplish what limited regulatory action has not: holding Covidien accountable for the full scope of injuries caused by their polyester mesh designs through hernia mesh lawsuit settlement proceedings.

Medical complications from Covidien hernia mesh implants can devastate patients’ lives, often emerging months or years after initial surgery when scar tissue has fully integrated with the defective polyester material.

The FDA’s MAUDE database documents numerous adverse events involving Covidien products, including reports of extreme debilitating pain, mesh failure requiring emergency surgery, and fat necrosis growing onto mesh requiring panniculectomy procedures.

These complications frequently transform what should be routine hernia repairs into life-altering medical crises requiring multiple surgeries, extended recovery periods, and permanent lifestyle modifications that impact not only patients but their entire families.

Common Physical Complications and Symptoms

Patients suffering from complications after receiving defective Covidien hernia mesh implants report a constellation of symptoms that impair their quality of life.

Patients report experiencing these debilitating complications from defective mesh:

• Severe Chronic Pain: Unlike normal post-surgical discomfort, mesh-related pain persists and often intensifies over time. Patients describe sharp, stabbing sensations in the abdomen, groin, or leg that resist conventional pain management. One FDA MAUDE report documented a patient who “developed extreme debilitating pain at the surgery site and into the groin area” just weeks after ProGrip mesh implantation. The pain becomes particularly severe during movement, making work, exercise, and intimate activities difficult or impossible.
• Infections and Sepsis: Polyester mesh creates an ideal environment for bacterial colonization, leading to both localized and systemic infections. The multifilament structure of older Parietex products showed “incredibly high infection rates” according to medical literature. Even monofilament designs remain susceptible to biofilm formation that prevents antibiotic penetration. Infections can manifest as wound drainage, fever, redness, and in severe cases, life-threatening sepsis requiring emergency intervention.
• Bowel Obstruction and Perforation: Among the most dangerous complications, bowel obstructions occur when mesh adheres to or compresses intestinal tissue. The polyester material’s tendency to shrink by 30-50% can cause mesh to constrict around bowel loops, creating blockages. Perforation happens when rigid, contracted mesh punctures through the intestinal wall, potentially causing peritonitis—a medical emergency with mortality rates exceeding 30% if untreated.
• Mesh Migration: Covidien mesh can move from its original placement site, sometimes traveling large distances within the abdomen, similar to cases in the Ethicon hernia mesh MDL. FDA reports document cases where mesh was “found at the bottom of patients’ stomachs via CT scans.” Migration occurs when the polyester material fails to properly integrate with surrounding tissue or when shrinkage causes detachment from fixation points. Migrated mesh can damage organs, nerves, and blood vessels along its path.
• Adhesion Formation: Dense scar tissue adhesions develop when the protective collagen coating absorbs prematurely, allowing direct mesh contact with organs. These adhesions bind organs together in unnatural configurations, causing chronic pain, bowel dysfunction, and female fertility issues. Surgeons describe adhesions from polyester mesh as particularly dense and vascular, making surgical removal dangerous and sometimes impossible.
• Hernia Recurrence: Despite being designed to prevent hernias, Covidien mesh products show higher failure rates than competitors. The polyester material’s shrinkage and mechanical weakness lead to mesh tearing or pulling away from tissue. Patients face the devastating reality of undergoing additional surgeries for recurrent hernias, often with more extensive repairs required due to tissue damage from the failed mesh.

If you or a loved one experienced any of these severe complications after Covidien mesh implantation, including chronic pain, infection, or organ damage, you may be eligible to seek compensation.

Contact TruLaw using the chat on this page to receive an instant case evaluation and determine whether you qualify to join others in filing a Transvaginal mesh lawsuit today.

Long-Term Health Impact and Revision Surgeries

The cascade of medical interventions required to address Covidien mesh complications often proves more traumatic than the original hernia repair.

Medical interventions required to address mesh failures include:

• Mesh Explantation Procedures: Complete mesh removal represents one of surgery’s most challenging procedures, far exceeding issues faced in polypropylene hernia mesh litigation. After 30 days, polyester mesh becomes encased in rigid scar tissue, with blood vessels and nerves growing through the material. Surgeons must meticulously dissect mesh from vital structures, a process taking 4-6 hours compared to 45 minutes for initial placement. Some patients require multiple staged surgeries when complete removal proves too dangerous in a single operation.
• Bowel Resection Requirements: When mesh erodes into or obstructs intestinal tissue, surgeons must remove affected bowel sections. Small bowel resections, specifically mentioned in bellwether case documents. Large bowel resections may necessitate temporary or permanent colostomies, fundamentally altering patients’ lives.
• Abdominal Wall Reconstruction: After mesh removal, patients often have massive tissue defects requiring reconstruction. Surgeons may need to perform component separation techniques, tissue flaps, or use biological grafts to restore abdominal wall integrity. These procedures carry higher complication rates than primary repairs and may still result in weakness or bulging, issues not seen as frequently with Bard hernia mesh lawsuits.
• Adhesiolysis Procedures: Separating organs bound by mesh-induced adhesions requires extreme surgical skill. The process can take hours, with constant risk of organ injury. Extensive adhesiolysis increases risks of enterotomies (accidental bowel perforations) by up to 7%, each requiring immediate repair and increasing infection risk.

The broader health impacts extend far beyond surgical interventions.

Chronic pain from mesh complications frequently leads to opioid dependency, with patients trapped between inadequate pain relief and addiction risks.

Studies published by the National Institutes of Health document how mesh complications cause erectile dysfunction in men through nerve damage or reduced blood supply, sometimes requiring testicular removal.

Financial devastation often accompanies medical complications.

Revision surgeries can cost $50,000-$150,000 each, with many patients requiring multiple procedures.

Extended recovery periods averaging 3-6 months per surgery result in lost wages and depleted savings.

Insurance companies may deny coverage for revision procedures, considering them “complications” rather than necessary treatments.

Psychological impacts prove equally severe.

Patients report depression, anxiety, and post-traumatic stress from repeated surgeries and chronic pain.

Relationships suffer as physical intimacy becomes painful or impossible.

Career changes become necessary when physical demands exceed capabilities.

The promise of a simple hernia repair transforms into years of medical procedures, financial hardship, and dramatically reduced quality of life, outcomes that plaintiff’s hernia mesh lawyers seek to address through litigation.

TruLaw partners with experienced litigation leaders who understand the devastating impact of defective Covidien mesh on patients’ lives.

These legal professionals work tirelessly to secure compensation for medical expenses, lost wages, and the profound suffering caused by these defective products through a successful hernia mesh verdict.

The ongoing litigation seeks not only individual justice but systemic change to prevent future patients from experiencing similar harm.

The Covidien mesh litigation stands at an important juncture in August 2025, with settlement discussions progressing while bellwether trials approach in 2026.

The recent Bard hernia mesh settlement announcement in October 2024, resolving approximately 38,000 cases for a reported $1.7 billion, has created momentum and expectations for similar resolution in the Covidien cases.

However, Covidien’s unique polyester mesh design issues present distinct challenges that may result in different settlement dynamics compared to Bard hernia mesh litigation.

Federal MDL 3029 Proceedings and Bellwether Trials

The federal multidistrict litigation continues to expand, with current case counts showing growth from initial consolidation.

The federal multidistrict litigation has reached these benchmarks:

• Current Case Status: As of August 2025, between 1,998 and 2,040 federal cases are pending before Judge Patti B. Saris in the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts. This represents dramatic growth from 869 cases in December 2023 and only 156 cases in December 2022. The steady influx of new filings demonstrates ongoing discovery of mesh-related injuries as patients experience complications years after implantation.
• Discovery Phase Progress: The litigation has produced nearly 2 million documents through corporate discovery, revealing internal communications about polyester mesh risks. Depositions of Covidien and Medtronic representatives continue, with most taking place in Brussels, Belgium, where the mesh products were designed and developed. Discovery deadlines have been extended multiple times, with general corporate discovery now set to conclude by February 7, 2025, and expert discovery by July 28, 2025.
• Bellwether Trial Schedule: The first bellwether trial in Patterson v. Covidien (Case No. 22-10153) is firmly scheduled for February 17, 2026, with jury selection beginning that day. The pretrial conference will occur on February 4, 2026, in Boston, with the joint pretrial memorandum due January 27. This Alabama plaintiff alleges Symbotex mesh caused severe adhesions and bowel obstruction requiring small bowel resection after the collagen coating prematurely resorbed. The second bellwether trial, set for July 13, 2026, involves a Mississippi woman (Wardell) who received Parietex Optimized Composite Mesh in January 2017.
• Mediation and Settlement Efforts: Following the Bard settlement model, parties selected an experienced mediator by February 24, 2025, with in-person mediation sessions scheduled for March 31 through April 4, 2025. Judge Saris has mandated completion of all mediation efforts by September 22, 2025, suggesting the court’s strong preference for negotiated resolution before trial.

If you or a loved one suffered complications from Covidien mesh requiring revision surgery or causing chronic pain, you may be eligible to seek compensation.

Contact TruLaw using the chat on this page to receive an instant case evaluation and determine whether you qualify to join others in filing a Transvaginal mesh lawsuit today.

State Court Consolidations and Settlement Prospects

Beyond federal proceedings, thousands of additional Covidien cases proceed through state courts, creating a multi-jurisdictional litigation landscape.

State jurisdictions managing Covidien mesh caseloads demonstrate the following patterns:

• Massachusetts State Court Consolidation: Over 6,000 cases are pending in Suffolk County Superior Court before Associate Justice Hélène Kazanjian, representing the largest concentration of Covidien mesh litigation. These cases primarily involve multifilament and monofilament polyester hernia meshes. The first state court bellwether trial is scheduled for Fall 2025, potentially preceding the federal trials and providing early insight into jury responses to polyester mesh claims.
• Minnesota State Court Proceedings: Approximately 500 cases proceed in Minnesota courts, uniquely including some polypropylene-based Parietene products alongside polyester meshes. Minnesota’s proceedings demonstrate the geographic spread of Covidien mesh injuries beyond the company’s Massachusetts headquarters.
• Coordination Between Jurisdictions: Federal and state courts have implemented coordination protocols for consistent discovery and trial preparation. Depositions taken in federal proceedings are shared with state courts, avoiding duplicative efforts. This coordination suggests preparation for potential global settlement encompassing all jurisdictions, similar to the Bard resolution.
• Settlement Value Analysis: The October 2024 Bard settlement provides a benchmark, with that company setting aside $1.7 billion to resolve approximately 38,000 cases, averaging $40,000-$70,000 per claim with higher amounts for severe injuries. However, several factors suggest Covidien settlements may exceed these values. The polyester construction unique to Covidien products creates distinct injury patterns potentially viewed more favorably by juries. The scientific evidence against polyester use dating to 1998 provides strong liability arguments. Additionally, the severity of complications in bellwether cases, including bowel resections and multiple revision surgeries, indicates substantial damages.

Legal experts note that Covidien appears to be waiting to observe Bard settlement outcomes before committing to similar terms.

The company’s strategy of defending through bellwether trials rather than early settlement may backfire if juries award substantial verdicts.

The Rhode Island state court’s 2022 verdict of $4.8 million in a Bard case demonstrates potential jury sympathy for mesh victims, which could influence Covidien’s settlement calculations.

The ongoing litigation demonstrates that mesh injuries continue emerging years after implantation, with new cases filed monthly despite mature MDL status.

This “long tail” of injuries may complicate settlement structures, potentially requiring provisions for future claimants similar to other mass tort resolutions.

Please be advised that any projected or estimated settlement amounts mentioned on this page are general estimations and are not guaranteed.

These amounts are meant to provide a general idea of what settlement ranges could look like and should not be taken as definitive expectations for your case.

Individual settlement values depend on numerous factors including injury severity, medical expenses, lost wages, and the specific circumstances of each claim.

Contact TruLaw using the chat on this page to receive an instant case evaluation and discuss your specific situation.

Determining eligibility for a Covidien mesh lawsuit requires careful evaluation of medical history, documentation, and timing considerations that vary by state.

Successful claims demand more than just experiencing complications—plaintiffs must prove specific Covidien mesh products caused their injuries through comprehensive medical evidence and meet strict legal deadlines.

TruLaw provides immediate answers about individual eligibility based on case details, offering instant case evaluation to help potential plaintiffs understand their legal standing.

The firm’s partnerships with experienced litigation leaders ensure clients receive expert guidance through the documentation gathering process and connect with appropriate legal resources for pursuing compensation against Covidien and Medtronic.

Medical Documentation and Proof Requirements

Building a strong Covidien mesh lawsuit requires meticulous documentation that definitively establishes product identification, medical injuries, and causation.

Successful claims require plaintiffs to provide this comprehensive medical evidence:

• Surgical Operative Reports: The foundation of any mesh lawsuit rests on proving which specific product was implanted. Operative reports must contain the mesh product name, manufacturer identification, product code, and lot number. Many hospitals use product sticker labels that provide definitive proof of the exact Covidien mesh used. Without this specific identification, manufacturers can successfully argue for case dismissal, as occurred in recent Johnson & Johnson litigation where plaintiffs couldn’t prove Ethicon manufactured their mesh.
• Pathology Reports from Revision Surgery: When mesh removal becomes necessary, pathology analysis provides evidence of product failure. These reports document mesh degradation, tissue adherence patterns, inflammatory responses, and bacterial colonization. Surgeons often photograph explanted mesh, showing polyester fiber unraveling, shrinkage measurements, and tissue damage patterns unique to Covidien products.
• Imaging Studies Documentation: CT scans, MRIs, and contrast studies serve multiple evidentiary purposes. Pre-revision imaging demonstrates mesh migration distances, organ involvement, and adhesion formation. Serial imaging over time can prove progressive mesh shrinkage—particularly important for polyester products known to contract 30-50%. Radiologists’ reports interpreting these images provide expert medical opinions linking mesh position changes to patient symptoms.
• Complete Medical Treatment History: Beyond surgical records, comprehensive documentation includes all physician visits addressing mesh-related symptoms, emergency room visits for acute complications, pain management records demonstrating chronic issues, infectious disease consultations for persistent infections, and gastroenterology records for bowel complications. Each visit strengthens the causation chain linking Covidien mesh to ongoing injuries.
• Hospital Billing Records: While insufficient alone for product identification, billing records can corroborate operative reports and provide supporting evidence. These documents often list specific product codes and costs, helping establish which Covidien mesh products the hospital stocked and used during the relevant timeframe.
• Expert Medical Testimony Requirements: Covidien mesh cases require expert witnesses to establish that complications resulted from product defects rather than surgical technique or patient factors. Experts must explain how polyester degradation mechanisms differ from polypropylene, why collagen barriers fail prematurely, and how specific complications relate to design defects. Medical literature from peer-reviewed journals provides scientific support for expert opinions.
• Personal Documentation: Patients strengthen their cases by maintaining pain diaries documenting daily symptoms, photographing visible complications like wound drainage or bulging, keeping records of missed work and activity limitations, and preserving correspondence with healthcare providers. These personal records humanize the medical evidence and demonstrate ongoing impact.

If you or a loved one lacks complete medical documentation but experienced severe complications after Covidien mesh implantation, don’t assume you cannot pursue a claim.

Contact TruLaw using the chat on this page to receive an instant case evaluation—our legal partners can help obtain missing records and determine whether you qualify to join others in filing a Transvaginal mesh lawsuit today.

Statute of Limitations and Filing Deadlines

Time limits for filing Covidien mesh lawsuits create urgency for potential plaintiffs, with variations across jurisdictions requiring immediate legal consultation.

Time-sensitive filing requirements vary across jurisdictions as follows:

• State-Specific Limitation Periods: Product liability statutes of limitations range from one to six years, with most states allowing two to four years for filing. Kentucky provides only one year from injury discovery, Maine allows six years. California, New York, and Texas set two-year deadlines, Illinois provides two years for personal injury but five years for product liability claims, and Florida allows four years from injury date.
• Discovery Rule Applications: Most states apply the “discovery rule” for latent injuries, starting the limitations clock when patients knew or reasonably should have known their injuries resulted from defective mesh. For Covidien mesh, discovery often occurs during revision surgery when surgeons observe mesh degradation, after repeated infections resist treatment and mesh involvement becomes apparent, when imaging reveals mesh migration or shrinkage, or following medical literature publication linking polyester mesh to specific complications.
• Statutes of Repose Complications: Some states impose absolute deadlines regardless of discovery date. These statutes of repose typically run 10-12 years from product manufacture, sale, or implantation. North Carolina’s 12-year repose period from initial sale could bar claims for older implants even if complications recently emerged.
• Wrongful Death Considerations: When mesh complications prove fatal, different limitation periods apply. Surviving family members typically have two years from death date rather than injury discovery. These cases may proceed even if the deceased patient’s limitation period expired, provided death resulted from mesh-related complications.

Immediate legal consultation remains vital even if years have passed since implantation or if the standard limitation period appears expired.

Experienced attorneys can identify applicable exceptions, determine the most favorable jurisdiction, and preserve claims through prompt filing.

The consequences of missing deadlines prove absolute—courts lack discretion to hear time-barred cases regardless of injury severity or case merit.

TruLaw’s instant case evaluation helps potential plaintiffs quickly determine whether their claims remain viable under applicable statutes of limitations.

Don’t let confusion about deadlines prevent you from seeking deserved compensation—every day matters when limitation periods are running.

The Covidien hernia mesh lawyers at TruLaw and our partner firms are dedicated to supporting clients through the process of filing a Covidien mesh lawsuit claim.

With extensive experience in product liability cases, Jessica Paluch-Hoerman and our partner law firms work with litigation leaders and medical experts to prove how defective mesh implants caused you harm.

TruLaw focuses on securing compensation for medical expenses, revision surgeries, pain and suffering, lost income, and other damages resulting from your Covidien hernia mesh injuries.

We understand the physical and emotional toll that Covidien hernia mesh complications have on your life and provide the personalized guidance you need when seeking justice.

Meet the Lead Covidien Mesh Attorney at TruLaw

Meet our lead Covidien Mesh attorney:

• Jessica Paluch-Hoerman: As founder and managing attorney of TruLaw, Jessica brings her experience in product liability and personal injury to her client-centered approach by prioritizing open communication and personalized attention with her clients. Through TruLaw and partner law firms, Jessica has helped collect over $3 billion on behalf of injured individuals across all 50 states through verdicts and negotiated settlements.

How much does hiring a Covidien mesh lawyer from TruLaw cost?

At TruLaw, we believe financial concerns should never stand in the way of justice.

That’s why we operate on a contingency fee basis—with this approach, you only pay legal fees after you’ve been awarded compensation for your injuries.

If you or a loved one experienced pain, bleeding, infection, organ perforation, mesh erosion, or other complications from transvaginal mesh implants, you may be eligible to seek compensation.

Contact TruLaw using the chat on this page to receive an instant case evaluation and determine whether you qualify to join others in filing a Covidien Mesh lawsuit today.

Covidien mesh lawsuits are being filed by women across the country who suffered serious complications from pelvic mesh implants used to treat pelvic organ prolapse and stress urinary incontinence.

TruLaw is currently accepting clients for the Covidien Mesh lawsuit.

A few reasons to choose TruLaw for your Covidien Mesh lawsuit include:

• If We Don’t Win, You Don’t Pay: The Covidien hernia mesh lawyers at TruLaw and our partner firms operate on a contingency fee basis, meaning we only get paid if you win.
• Expertise: We have decades of experience handling product liability cases similar to the Covidien Mesh lawsuit.
• Successful Track Record: The hernia mesh lawsuit lawyers at TruLaw and our partner law firms have helped our clients recover billions of dollars in compensation through verdicts and negotiated settlements.

If you or a loved one suffered pain, infection, bleeding, organ damage, or other complications after receiving a Covidien mesh implant, you may be eligible to seek compensation.

Contact TruLaw using the chat on this page to receive an instant case evaluation that can determine if you qualify for the Covidien Mesh lawsuit today.