Do I Qualify for a Vaginal Mesh Lawsuit?

Multiple manufacturers have faced legal scrutiny for their mesh products, with each company producing various models that have caused widespread complications.

The major manufacturers include, but are not limited to:

• Johnson & Johnson’s Ethicon division
• Boston Scientific
• C.R. Bard (now part of Becton Dickinson)
• American Medical Systems (acquired by Endo Pharmaceuticals)
• Coloplast

Some of the specific products involved in litigation include, but are not limited to:

• Boston Scientific:
  • Pinnacle Pelvic Floor Repair Kit
  • Uphold Vaginal Support System
  • Advantage
  • Obtryx Slings
• C.R. Bard:
  • Avaulta Solo
  • Avaulta Plus
  • Align Urethral Support System
  • Pelvilace Support Systems
  • Uretex Urethral Support Systems

These mesh products fall into distinct categories based on their intended use.

Transvaginal mesh kits were designed for pelvic organ prolapse repair and included pre-cut mesh pieces with specialized tools for placement through the vaginal wall.

Mid-urethral slings (primarily used to treat stress urinary incontinence) are implanted by placing a narrow strip of mesh beneath the urethra.

The FDA continues to assess the safety and effectiveness of urogynecologic surgical mesh devices.

Many of these products received FDA clearance through the 510(k) process, which allowed manufacturers to bypass rigorous clinical trials by claiming their devices were substantially equivalent to products already on the market.

Common Complications That May Qualify for Legal Claims

Women implanted with vaginal mesh have reported a devastating array of complications that often emerge months or years after their initial surgery.

Some early studies reported erosion rates as high as 24%.

The most frequently reported complications include:

• Mesh erosion through the vaginal wall — where the synthetic material literally wears through surrounding tissue and neighboring tissues are worn from the rubbing of mesh, occurring in a notable number of cases
• Chronic pelvic pain — often debilitating and resistant to treatment
• Painful intercourse (dyspareunia) — destroying intimate relationships and causing psychological distress
• Recurrent urinary tract infections — as bacteria colonize the porous mesh material
• Vaginal scarring and shrinkage — affecting normal function and comfort
• Organ perforation — particularly of the bladder or bowel
• Abnormal bleeding — disrupting normal menstrual cycles and daily life
• Nerve damage — causing numbness or hypersensitivity
• Need for multiple revision surgeries — requiring additional procedures to address failures

Pain and exposure are the two most reported complications associated with the use of polypropylene mesh in urogynecologic procedures.

Medical Documentation Requirements for Your Case

Building a strong vaginal mesh claim requires comprehensive medical documentation that establishes both the implantation of mesh and resulting complications.

Key medical records needed for your case include:

• Original surgical report — detailing the specific mesh product used, the manufacturer’s name, and the lot numbers
• Pre-operative consent forms — helping demonstrate what risks were disclosed versus what complications occurred
• Post-operative care notes — tracking the development of symptoms to create a timeline linking mesh implantation to injuries
• Diagnostic imaging records — CT scans, MRIs, and ultrasounds that can reveal mesh migration, erosion into surrounding organs, or inflammatory responses
• Revision or removal surgery records — providing powerful evidence of mesh failure, particularly operative reports that describe the condition of the explanted mesh, the extent of tissue damage, and surgical photographs
• Ongoing treatment documentation — including pain management records, physical therapy notes, and psychological counseling for mesh-related distress
• Pathology reports — examining removed mesh and surrounding tissue, often revealing degradation of the polypropylene material and chronic inflammatory responses that support product defect claims

Diagnostic imaging plays a key role in documenting mesh-related problems.

Using a laparoscope or DaVinci robot, the surgeon enters the abdomen via five small incisions and inserts a mesh or tissue-based strip to hold the pelvic organs or vagina in place.

Records from revision or removal surgeries provide powerful evidence of mesh failure – particularly operative reports that describe the condition of the explanted mesh, the extent of tissue damage, and surgical photographs.

Ongoing treatment documentation helps establish the full scope of damages, while pathology reports examining removed mesh and surrounding tissue often reveal degradation of the polypropylene material and chronic inflammatory responses that support product defect claims.

The foundation of vaginal mesh litigation rests on multiple legal theories that hold manufacturers accountable for placing dangerous products on the market without adequate warnings or testing.

These revelations have exposed a pattern of corporate knowledge about mesh dangers that manufacturers failed to disclose to doctors and patients — forming the basis for thousands of successful claims against mesh companies.

Design Defect Claims in Mesh Litigation

Design defect claims assert that vaginal mesh products were inherently dangerous from conception, regardless of how carefully they were manufactured or implanted.

The fundamental flaw lies in using polypropylene material for permanent implantation in the dynamic environment of the pelvic floor, where constant movement and tissue interaction cause the mesh to degrade over time.

Scientific evidence has revealed multiple design flaws in mesh products:

• Polypropylene degradation in vivo — appearing as mesh surface cracking and peeling that contradicts biocompatibility requirements
• Oxidative degradation process — causing the mesh to become brittle and crack, creating sharp edges that cut through surrounding tissue
• Unstable mesh geometries — evidenced by pore collapse and wrinkling after tensioning ex vivo, recapitulating what is observed in meshes excised from women with complications
• Clear signs of oxidation — commercial polypropylene pelvic mesh products showed deterioration in chemical compositions and molecular weight characteristics after implantation

This aging process of the mesh (resulting in the lack of bio-stability) contradicts the requirement of biocompatibility.

Commercial polypropylene pelvic mesh products were characterized in terms of their chemical compositions and molecular weight characteristics before and after implantation.

Alternative designs that could have prevented many complications include:

• Mesh with larger pore sizes for better tissue integration
• Lighter weight construction to reduce inflammatory response
• Biocompatible coatings to minimize tissue reaction
• Different materials altogether that would be safer for permanent implantation

Some experts argue that these safer alternatives were available but manufacturers chose cheaper, more dangerous designs over patient safety.

The existence of these alternatives strengthens design defect claims by demonstrating that manufacturers prioritized profits over protection.

Failure to Warn and Marketing Misrepresentation

Manufacturers had extensive knowledge of mesh complications but actively concealed this information from the medical community and patients — intentionally deceiving the U.S. Food and Drug Administration, the medical profession, patients, and the general public about the actual safety and efficacy of their products.

Internal company documents revealed through litigation show manufacturers:

• Were aware of high complication rates years before updating their warnings
• Failed to inform doctors about the true risks of their products
• Emphasized quick procedures, minimal recovery time, and permanent solutions while downplaying serious risks
• Promoted off-label uses and encouraged dangerous applications (such as in younger women or those planning future pregnancies)
• Continued marketing despite knowing about safety issues

Women who have filed pelvic mesh lawsuits claim that:

• “Pelvic Mesh Products had not been adequately tested and found to be safe and effective for the treatment of incontinence and prolapse”; and
• The defendants provided patients with false and misleading information about how safe and effective the products supposedly were.

The failure to provide adequate warnings prevented doctors from obtaining proper informed consent and denied women the opportunity to choose safer alternatives.

Manufacturers may be found liable for failing to properly warn against the risks and complications associated with their mesh products as well as intentionally misleading consumers about surgical mesh safety and efficacy.

This breach of duty to warn forms a key foundation of mesh litigation — particularly when combined with evidence of deliberate concealment.

Manufacturing Defects and Quality Control Issues

Beyond design flaws, many mesh products suffered from manufacturing defects that increased their danger to patients.

The manufacturing process itself introduced weaknesses and inconsistencies, making some batches of mesh more prone to complications than others.

Quality control failures included:

• Contamination during production — introducing foreign substances that could cause additional complications
• Improper sterilization procedures — potentially leading to infections or compromised material integrity
• Deviation from material specifications — using lower-grade polypropylene or altered mesh structures to reduce costs
• Failed quality tests — continuing to ship products despite identified problems rather than conducting recalls
• Batch-to-batch inconsistencies — creating products that degraded faster than expected

Evidence of polypropylene mesh degradation has revealed particle accumulation in surrounding tissues, raising concerns about potential local and systemic immune responses.

These particles (released as the mesh breaks down) trigger inflammatory responses and may cause autoimmune-like symptoms in some patients.

Documentation obtained through litigation has revealed instances where manufacturers identified quality problems but continued shipping products rather than conducting recalls.

Batch records showing contamination, failed quality tests, and manufacturing deviations provide powerful evidence in individual cases — particularly when linked to specific lot numbers implanted in injured patients.

The landscape of vaginal mesh litigation has evolved dramatically since the first cases were filed over a decade ago — transforming from scattered individual lawsuits into one of the largest mass tort litigations in United States history.

Transvaginal mesh lawsuits (once part of one of the largest multidistrict litigations in U.S. history) have mostly resolved.

Over 100,000 cases were filed, and settlements and verdicts exceeded billions.

While the centralized proceedings have concluded, new transvaginal mesh cases continue to emerge as women discover the connection between their health problems and mesh implants received years earlier.

Active Multidistrict Litigation and State Court Proceedings

The federal multidistrict litigation (MDL) that once dominated vaginal mesh cases has officially concluded, marking a major shift in how these cases proceed through the court system.

The main MDL closed in November 2022, but lawyers continue to bring cases to state courts.

The federal MDL process involved:

• Seven separate MDLs organized by manufacturer — managed by Judge Joseph R. Goodwin of the Southern District of West Virginia
• Tens of thousands of cases — against American Medical Systems, C.R. Bard, Boston Scientific, Ethicon (Johnson & Johnson), Coloplast, Cook Medical, and Neomedic
• Bellwether trial process — providing important insights into jury responses to mesh injury claims
• Major plaintiff victories — pressuring manufacturers to pursue settlement negotiations rather than face potentially devastating jury verdicts

Known as “bellwether” cases, these test trials are designed to help the parties gauge how juries may respond to evidence and testimony that may be presented against each of the manufacturers in other cases.

These early trials resulted in important plaintiff victories that pressured manufacturers to pursue settlement negotiations rather than face potentially devastating jury verdicts.

State court proceedings have gained prominence following the MDL closures, with several jurisdictions maintaining active dockets for mesh cases.

Settlement Programs and Compensation Structures

Manufacturers have paid billions in settlements to resolve mesh claims — establishing various programs to compensate women injured by their pelvic mesh devices based on injury severity and case factors.

Since the first transvaginal mesh implant lawsuits have been filed over a decade ago, over $8 billion in settlements and verdicts have been paid by negligent manufacturers.

These settlement programs typically employ tiered compensation systems that categorize injuries and assign settlement values accordingly.

Current settlement ranges and factors:

• Average settlement amounts: $40,000 to $450,000 as of May 2025
• Higher compensation factors: Multiple revision surgeries required, permanence of complications, younger age of plaintiff, and substantial impact on quality of life
• Premium settlements: Women requiring multiple surgeries or experiencing permanent disabilities receive compensation at the higher end of the range

Major manufacturer settlement programs include:

• American Medical Systems (Endo International) — $830 million settlement in April 2014, plus an additional $775 million set aside in August 2017 for remaining lawsuits
• Boston Scientific and Johnson & Johnson — Hundreds of millions paid to resolve thousands of cases (though exact settlement terms often remain confidential due to non-disclosure agreements)

Timeline Expectations for Case Resolution

Current mesh litigation operates on different timelines than the consolidated MDL proceedings, with individual cases potentially progressing more quickly through state courts.

Without the MDL structure, individual settlements tend to be higher — as cases are no longer subject to the large-scale, lower-value settlements that often occurred when MDLs were active.

Typical case timeline factors:

• 18-36 months from filing to resolution — though cases involving severe pain may take longer
• Discovery phase — consuming valuable time as attorneys gather medical records, depose experts, and build evidence of manufacturer misconduct
• Settlement negotiations — typically commencing after key depositions are completed, with mediation sessions scheduled to facilitate resolution
• Trial preparation — cases that don’t settle may proceed to trial, adding 6-12 months to the timeline but potentially resulting in larger awards

Benefits of the current individualized approach:

• Higher settlement potential — lawyers believe filing cases individually can lead to better compensation than class actions
• Personalized case development — each case receives focused attention rather than mass processing
• Better results — often yields superior outcomes compared to the mass settlement programs of the past
• Tailored strategy — allows attorneys to highlight unique aspects of each woman’s injuries and circumstances

Women considering litigation should understand that manufacturers continue to defend cases vigorously despite the substantial settlements paid to date.

In 2024, there’s a trend towards handling these cases individually rather than through class actions.

This individualized approach requires patience but often yields better results than the mass settlement programs of the past.

To qualify for a vaginal mesh lawsuit, plaintiffs must meet certain basic criteria.

Beyond this basic requirement, several additional factors determine the strength and viability of a potential claim against mesh manufacturers.

Medical Criteria and Injury Severity Requirements

The foundation of any successful mesh claim rests on demonstrating specific medical complications directly linked to the implanted device.

Second, plaintiffs need to show that their vaginal mesh implant caused one of the various complications that are known to be related to defective vaginal mesh products.

Not all post-surgical discomfort qualifies for legal action — the complications must rise to a level of severity that caused tangible harm and required medical intervention.

The FDA reported that it had received 2,874 reports of injury, death, malfunctions and other transvaginal mesh-related complications from Jan. 1, 2008 to Dec. 31, 2010.

The most common qualifying complications include, but are not limited to:

• Mesh erosion through vaginal tissues — where the synthetic material literally wears through surrounding structures causing pain, bleeding, and infection risk
• Mesh erosion/extrusion — when the mesh pokes through the vaginal wall or cuts through internal tissue
• Organ perforation — occurring when displaced mesh punctures the bladder, bowel, or blood vessels
• Vaginal scarring and fistula formation — causing structural damage and ongoing complications
• Painful intercourse (dyspareunia) — affecting intimate relationships and quality of life
• Bladder infection or perforation — resulting in urinary complications and potential organ damage
• Bowel and nerve trauma — leading to digestive issues and neurological symptoms
• Chronic pelvic, back and leg pains — persistent pain that interferes with daily activities

Strong indicators for vaginal mesh claim eligibility include, but are not limited to:

• Need for revision surgery — we take cases where the client has or has been told to get a revision or repair of the transvaginal mesh
• Multiple surgical procedures — women who underwent multiple operations to remove mesh or repair damage demonstrate the severity of their injuries and device failure
• Permanent injuries — documentation of chronic pain syndromes, sexual dysfunction, or urinary problems that persist despite treatment

The need for revision surgery strongly supports claim eligibility.

Women who underwent multiple surgical procedures to remove mesh or repair damage demonstrate the severity of their injuries and the failure of the original device.

Statute of Limitations and Filing Deadlines

Time constraints represent one of the most important aspects of mesh claim eligibility, with each state imposing different deadlines for filing lawsuits.

Key timing considerations include, but are not limited to:

• State-specific deadlines — every state has its specific statute of limitations (ranging from 1 to 6 years)
• Most common timeframe — each state has its own statute of limitations for personal injury cases, but in most states the SOL is around 2-3 years
• Starting point varies — generally beginning from the date the claimant either underwent transvaginal mesh surgery or discovered the complications related to the mesh

The discovery rule provides protection for delayed complications:

• Discovery rule benefit — the statute of limitations begins when the plaintiff knew or should have known that the vaginal mesh caused the injury or complications
• Slow-developing symptoms — this principle recognizes that mesh injuries often develop slowly, with symptoms initially dismissed as normal post-surgical issues
• Recent legal precedent — appellate decisions have favored plaintiffs in determining when complications should have been discovered, acknowledging that many women reasonably attributed early symptoms to normal healing rather than defective mesh

The discovery rule states that the statute of limitations begins when the plaintiff knew or should have known that the vaginal mesh caused the injury or complications.

Factors That May Impact Your Claim Value

Multiple variables influence the potential value of a mesh claim, making each pelvic mesh case unique in its compensation potential.

Personal factors affecting compensation include, but are not limited to:

• Age considerations — age at the time of implantation and current age affect damage calculations, with younger women often receiving higher awards due to longer life expectancy with complications
• Injury severity and permanence — complications requiring ongoing medical treatment or resulting in disability drive higher valuations
• Pre-existing conditions — lifestyle factors may impact claim values but rarely eliminate eligibility entirely

Economic damages include, but are not limited to:

• Past and future medical expenses: including all treatment costs related to mesh complications
• Lost wages and diminished earning capacity — women forced to leave careers or reduce work hours due to mesh complications can document substantial financial impacts
• Ongoing care costs — expenses for continued treatment, physical therapy, or disability accommodations

Non-economic damages often exceed economic losses, these can include (but are not limited to):

• Pain and suffering compensation — particularly in cases involving sexual dysfunction or severe pelvic pain
• Loss of life enjoyment — impact on daily activities, relationships, and overall quality of life
• Emotional distress — psychological effects of ongoing complications and medical procedures

Manufacturers cannot escape liability by blaming patient factors when their products cause harm beyond what patients were warned about.

The strength of medical documentation (including operative reports identifying specific mesh products and detailed records of complications) greatly influences case valuation and the likelihood of favorable resolution.

Documentation that can help strengthen your case includes, but is not limited to:

• Medical records quality — operative reports identifying specific mesh products and detailed records of complications influence case valuation
• Expert testimony support — strong medical documentation increases the likelihood of favorable resolution
• Manufacturer liability evidence — participants felt angry that vaginal mesh had been “sold to them” as “gold standard,” saying that risks had been underplayed: “it was billed as quick and easy”

The financial and personal toll of vaginal mesh complications extends far beyond initial medical bills, encompassing a wide range of damages that courts recognize when determining appropriate compensation.

Individuals impacted by vaginal mesh complications can seek compensation for the following types of damages, including (but not limited to):

• Medical expenses
• Future treatment costs
• Emotional damages
• Pain and suffering
• Additional compensatory damages

Knowing the full scope of recoverable damages helps injured women and their attorneys build comprehensive claims that reflect the true impact of mesh injuries.

Economic Damages and Financial Losses

Economic damages represent the tangible financial impact of mesh complications, providing compensation for measurable losses that can be documented through bills, receipts, and expert calculations.

Recoverable compensation for past and future medical expenses includes (but is not limited to) expenses like:

• Surgeries
• Medications
• Hospital stays
• Ongoing medical care
• Specialist consultations

Patients who suffered complications after vaginal mesh implantation may be entitled to these past and future medical costs.

These medical expenses often represent the largest component of economic damages for women requiring multiple revision surgeries.

The calculation of future medical costs requires expert testimony from life care planners who project ongoing treatment needs.

For example, if you must take time off work intermittently when the pain is at its worst (or even if you can no longer work at all), the compensation pay-out can reflect the sum of these lost earnings.

Lost wages encompass not only time missed from work for surgeries and recovery but also reduced earning capacity when complications prevent women from returning to their previous occupations.

• Lost Wages and Future Earnings: Plaintiffs who can no longer work—or whose earning potential has been reduced due to their injuries—may receive higher settlements.

Juries use these damages (and the amount of the medical bills) as a marker for the overall payout.

Additional economic damages include out-of-pocket expenses for:

• Prescriptions
• Medical equipment
• Travel to medical appointments
• Household help necessitated by physical limitations
• Alternative treatments
• Physical therapy
• Psychological counseling to cope with the trauma of mesh complications

Some women incur costs for these various treatments and services as they work to manage their mesh-related complications and recovery.

Non-Economic Damages for Pain and Suffering

Non-economic damages compensate for the intangible yet profound ways mesh injuries diminish quality of life, recognizing that not all harm can be measured in dollars and cents.

Under the General Damages part of the claim, we can use the official guidelines, which recommend compensation amounts according to the type and severity of the injury.

Pain and suffering awards reflect the physical agony many women endure, from chronic mesh pain to painful sexual intercourse that destroys intimate relationships.

The emotional and psychological impact of mesh complications often equals or exceeds physical suffering.

Victims of vaginal mesh implant and sling failures who file a transvaginal mesh lawsuit may be able to collect compensation for damages including, but not limited to:

• Additional surgery and multiple surgical revisions
• Emotional distress
• Loss of the ability to have sexual relations
• Loss of quality of life
• Depression, anxiety, and post-traumatic stress (these conditions commonly accompany mesh injuries, particularly when women feel betrayed by a medical system that promised to help them)

Additionally, loss of consortium claims provide compensation to spouses affected by their partner’s injuries:

• Loss of consortium: Individuals who suffered a loss of sexual relations with their spouse as a result of their injuries may be able to claim additional damages related to these claims.

Courts increasingly acknowledge the devastating effect on marriages when sexual intimacy becomes impossible due to mesh-related vaginal pain and dysfunction.

Punitive Damages in Egregious Cases

Punitive damages serve a different purpose than compensatory damages, aiming to punish manufacturers for particularly reckless conduct and deter similar behavior in the future.

In addition, the punitive damages handed down by juries in some verdicts support the claim by women that manufacturers showed egregious misconduct in their failure to warn patients about mesh side effects.

These awards require proof that manufacturers acted with conscious disregard for patient safety.

The jury agreed with the plaintiff’s allegations, awarding her $17.5 million in punitive damages to punish the defendant for its egregious and wanton disregard for public safety.

Courts have found evidence supporting punitive damages in internal company documents showing manufacturers knew about mesh dangers but prioritized profits over patient safety.

The concealment of risk data, manipulation of clinical trials, and aggressive marketing despite known complications demonstrate the malicious conduct required for punitive awards.

For instance, Susan McFarland won a $120 million verdict against Ethicon in April 2019:

• McFarland had Ethicon’s TVT-O device implanted for stress urinary incontinence (SUI) in 2008.
• McFarland suffered pain and constant infections – removing the mesh did not alleviate symptoms.
• The Philadelphia jury awarded $100 million for punitive damages in her case.
• These large punitive awards send a clear message to the medical device industry that putting profits before patient safety carries severe financial consequences.

The path from experiencing mesh complications to securing compensation requires decisive action and careful documentation.

If you are someone considering a claim, the most important thing is to document how long you have been dealing with symptoms – especially if you were told it was something else.

Taking prompt action not only strengthens your potential claim but also ensures you don’t miss important deadlines that could impact your ability to recover compensation for the damages you’ve endured.

Documenting Your Complications and Gathering Records

Building a strong mesh claim begins with comprehensive documentation of your medical journey – from initial implantation through current complications.

Key documentation to gather includes, but is not limited to:

• Complete medical records from all healthcare providers involved in your mesh surgery and subsequent treatment (hospitals, surgeons, gynecologists, and pain management specialists)
• Personal symptom diary documenting daily pain levels, limitations on activities, missed work, and impact on relationships
• Specific dates, times, and descriptions of symptoms like bleeding, pain during intercourse, or urinary problems
• Photographic evidence and personal logs documenting symptoms such as pain and discomfort
• Operative reports containing product identification information (manufacturer name, product model, and lot numbers)
• Financial documentation including receipts for medical expenses, travel costs for treatment, prescriptions, and medical devices
• Evidence of lost wages with pay stubs, tax returns, and employer verification of missed work
• Documentation of career changes or reduced earning capacity due to mesh complications

You may also wish to keep a diary detailing the impact of the pain and injury you’re suffering to provide a clear, personal account of how your condition has affected your daily life and well-being.

Personal accounts could potentially help support your case.

Identifying the specific mesh product implanted proves necessary for establishing manufacturer liability.

In patients with no sling placement or mesh placement, ultrasound may supplement patient history by confirming the existence of a synthetic bladder sling implant – detecting an implant in a woman uninformed of the prior surgery or clearing up ambiguities about the type of previous surgery.

If product information is missing from operative reports, imaging studies or consultation with your surgeon may help identify the mesh type.

Questions to Ask During Attorney Consultations

Selecting the right attorney requires asking pointed questions that reveal their experience and approach to mesh litigation.

Important topics to discuss during consultations with vaginal mesh attorneys include, but are not limited to:

• Specific experience with vaginal mesh cases (including the number of cases handled, manufacturers they’ve sued, and outcomes achieved)
• Attorney’s resources for handling litigation against well-funded manufacturers
• Relationships with medical experts who can testify about mesh complications and engineering experts who know product defects
• Access to internal manufacturer documents obtained through previous litigation that could strengthen your case
• Financial arrangements and fee structure
• Case expenses including expert witness fees, court costs, and whether these are advanced by the firm or require upfront payment
• What happens if your case is unsuccessful and whether you’ll be responsible for any costs
• Communication expectations and update frequency (our law firm is extremely responsive – we do not keep clients waiting for updates on their cases and our team is extremely proactive when new, pertinent information becomes available in a case)
• Timeline for your case and realistic expectations for resolution

Protecting Your Rights While Pursuing Treatment

Balancing ongoing medical care with legal proceedings requires careful approach to protect both your health and legal claims.

The most important thing is to seek medical attention as soon as possible so that any issues with the mesh can be identified and treated accordingly.

This may result in the need for surgery to trim or remove the mesh.

Continue following your doctor’s treatment recommendations while maintaining open communication about your legal proceedings.

You will be asked to complete questionnaires at regular intervals through your treatment in order to contribute to a nationally held NHS database regarding mesh complications.

Be honest with healthcare providers about your symptoms and limitations – but avoid discussing fault or legal theories during medical appointments.

Focus on describing symptoms and seeking appropriate treatment rather than assigning blame for complications.

Insurance and privacy considerations include, but are not limited to:

• Documenting all insurance claims and denials related to mesh complications
• Being aware that some insurers may assert liens on any transvaginal mesh settlement or verdict to recover amounts paid for mesh-related treatment
  • Your attorney can negotiate these liens to impact your recovery while ensuring medical bills are addressed
• Limiting social media discussions about your injuries or legal case (many patients who were injured by TVM have pursued legal action to recover damages for medical bills, lost wages, and pain and suffering)
• Knowing that insurance companies and defense attorneys monitor social media for posts that could undermine damage claims
• Maintaining your normal activities within medical restrictions, but be aware that surveillance is possible during litigation

Our Transvaginal Mesh attorney at TruLaw is dedicated to supporting clients through the process of filing a Transvaginal Mesh lawsuit.

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 transvaginal mesh injuries.

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

Meet the Lead Transvaginal Mesh Attorney at TruLaw

Meet our lead Transvaginal 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 Transvaginal 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 Transvaginal Mesh lawsuit today.

Transvaginal 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 Transvaginal Mesh lawsuit.

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

• If We Don’t Win, You Don’t Pay: The Transvaginal 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 Transvaginal Mesh lawsuit.
• Successful Track Record: 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 experienced mesh-related injuries, you may be eligible to seek compensation.

Contact TruLaw using the chat on this page to receive an instant case evaluation and see if you can file a claim.