Attorney Jessica Paluch-Hoerman, founder of TruLaw, has over 28 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.
Question: Do I qualify for a vaginal mesh lawsuit?
Answer: You may qualify for a vaginal mesh lawsuit if you have suffered injuries or complications due to a vaginal mesh implant and received treatment, typically surgery, for these complications.
While many of the large class action lawsuits for vaginal mesh have been settled and closed to new cases, it is still possible to file an individual product liability lawsuit against the manufacturer of your implant.
Eligibility generally requires that you had a transvaginal mesh implanted and experienced related complications or injuries within the last few years.
It’s important to identify the specific manufacturer of your implant, as different products have varying levels of associated risks.
Even in 2025, new vaginal mesh lawsuits continue to be filed in both federal and state courts across the country for more recent cases of mesh-related injuries.
On this page, we’ll discuss this question in further depth, determining your eligibility for a vaginal mesh claim, compensation types and damage categories in vaginal mesh cases, and much more.
As women grow older, pelvic organ prolapse affects becomes increasingly common.
According to FDA data, between 30% and 50% of women will experience this condition at some point in their lives.
Among those affected, approximately 2 percent will develop symptoms including urine leakage when engaging in physical activities.
Vaginal mesh devices were designed to provide lasting support for women suffering from vaginal prolapse and stress urinary incontinence, yet these synthetic implants have created a medical crisis affecting thousands of women across the United States.
In 2019, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration ordered the manufacturers of all remaining surgical mesh products, designed for the transvaginal repair of pelvic organ prolapse (POP), to stop selling and distributing their products in the U.S. immediately.
This unprecedented FDA action followed years of mounting evidence that polypropylene mesh products posed serious risks to women’s health, transforming what doctors initially believed to be routine procedures into life-altering ordeals for many patients.
If you or a loved one has suffered from complications due to transvaginal mesh devices, you may be eligible to seek compensation.
Contact TruLaw using the chat on this page to receive an instant case evaluation and determine if you qualify to file a claim today.
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:
Some of the specific products involved in litigation include, but are not limited to:
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.
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:
Pain and exposure are the two most reported complications associated with the use of polypropylene mesh in urogynecologic procedures.
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:
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 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:
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:
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.
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:
Women who have filed pelvic mesh lawsuits claim that:
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.
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:
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.
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:
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.
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:
Major manufacturer settlement programs include:
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:
Benefits of the current individualized approach:
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.
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:
Strong indicators for vaginal mesh claim eligibility include, but are not limited to:
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.
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:
The discovery rule provides protection for delayed complications:
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.
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:
Economic damages include, but are not limited to:
Non-economic damages often exceed economic losses, these can include (but are not limited to):
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:
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):
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 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:
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.
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:
Some women incur costs for these various treatments and services as they work to manage their mesh-related complications and recovery.
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:
Additionally, loss of consortium claims provide compensation to spouses affected by their partner’s injuries:
Courts increasingly acknowledge the devastating effect on marriages when sexual intimacy becomes impossible due to mesh-related vaginal pain and dysfunction.
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:
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.
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:
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.
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:
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:
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 transvaginal mesh devices 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 our lead Transvaginal Mesh attorney:
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 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.
No, mesh removal is not required to file a lawsuit.
Many women cannot safely undergo removal surgery because mesh integrates with pelvic tissues over time or due to health risks.
Both removed and retained mesh cases receive compensation based on documented complications like erosion, chronic pain, or organ perforation.
While removal surgery can provide physical evidence and demonstrate injury severity, successful cases proceed without removal when medical records show complications.
If you or a loved one suffered complications from vaginal mesh, you may be eligible to seek compensation.
Contact TruLaw using the chat on this page to receive an instant case evaluation and learn if you qualify for a lawsuit.
State statutes of limitations range from 1-6 years, with most allowing 2-3 years from injury discovery.
The discovery rule applies since complications often appear years after implantation – your deadline starts when you discover the mesh caused your problems, not from surgery date.
Special extensions may apply for bankrupt manufacturers like Endo, which has specific trust deadlines.
MDL proceedings can also affect filing deadlines.
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.
You have the right to seek second opinions, especially from mesh-experienced physicians like urogynecologists or pelvic floor specialists.
Many doctors lack experience in identifying mesh exposure or mesh complications.
While defense experts may dispute causation, plaintiff medical experts can establish the connection through diagnostic testing and symptom pattern analysis.
Legal teams work with medical experts who review your complete history, tests, and symptoms to prove causation despite initial physician skepticism.
If you or a loved one developed serious health issues after mesh implantation, you may be eligible to seek compensation.
Contact TruLaw using the chat on this page to receive an instant case evaluation and discover your legal options.
No, lawsuits target manufacturers like Johnson & Johnson or Boston Scientific, not your healthcare providers.
Medical malpractice is separate from product liability claims.
You retain full rights to continued care, with legal protections against retaliation.
Doctors cannot refuse treatment based on your litigation.
Most physicians understand that these lawsuits focus on device defects and manufacturer failures, not physician performance.
If you or a loved one suffered harm from transvaginal mesh, you may be eligible to seek compensation.
Contact TruLaw using the chat on this page to receive an instant case evaluation and find out if you have a case.
Settlement ranges span $20,000 for minor complications to $400,000+ for severe injuries requiring multiple surgeries.
Most settlements fall between $150,000 to $450,000. Vaginal mesh manufacturers use tier systems based on injury severity, number of surgeries, and complication permanence.
Factors affecting value include age, economic losses, quality of life impact, and medical evidence strength.
These settlement amounts are only estimations that differ on a case-by-case basis depending on the details surrounding your situation.
For that reason, it’s best to consult with an experienced attorney who can help you learn about the potential settlement amounts for your exact case.
If you or a loved one experienced erosion, pain, or infection from mesh devices, you may be eligible to seek compensation.
Contact TruLaw using the chat on this page to receive an instant case evaluation and join thousands pursuing justice.
Bankruptcy channels claims through trust funds rather than eliminating them.
Endo filed for bankruptcy in August 2022, establishing trusts with specific deadlines – some September 2024, others April 2025. Missing deadlines permanently bars recovery.
Trust compensation typically provides reduced amounts compared to traditional litigation but offers guaranteed payment paths.
If you or a loved one were injured by defective transvaginal mesh products, you may be eligible to seek compensation.
Contact TruLaw using the chat on this page to receive an instant case evaluation and determine your eligibility before deadlines expire.
Managing Attorney & Owner
With over 25 years of legal experience, Jessica Paluch-Hoerman 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 the most reliable, accurate, and up-to-date legal information with our 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!
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.
Depo Provera Lawsuit claims are being filed by individuals who allege they developed meningioma (a type of brain tumor) after receiving Depo-Provera birth control injections.
A 2024 study found that women using Depo-Provera for at least 1 year are five times more likely to develop meningioma brain tumors compared to those not using the drug.
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?