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.
On this page, we’ll provide an overview of the transvaginal mesh lawsuit, examine the allegations faced by vaginal mesh manufacturers, the experiences of patients with transvaginal mesh implants, and much more.
The transvaginal mesh lawsuit focuses on the following claims made against manufacturers include, but are not limited to:
If you or a loved one has experienced serious medical complications related to a vaginal mesh implant, you may qualify for compensation.
Contact TruLaw using the chat on this page to receive an instant case evaluation to join the transvaginal mesh lawsuit today.
Midurethral mesh slings, commonly used to treat stress urinary incontinence (SUI), have come under increasing legal and medical scrutiny due to serious complications reported by thousands of patients.
Complaints such as chronic pain, infections, mesh erosion, and organ perforation have led to growing concerns about the safety and design of these surgical implants.
New research published in the Applied and Environmental Microbiology journal in June 2025 offers fresh insight into the potential biological causes behind these issues.
The study found that the bacteria colonizing the mesh slings differ significantly from the typical microbial populations found in nearby vaginal, urinary, and skin environments.
In particular, mesh samples from patients with chronic pain showed greater bacterial diversity, including the presence of species such as Enterococcus—suggesting a connection between mesh-specific bacteria and inflammatory complications.
These findings support claims made in numerous lawsuits against mesh manufacturers.
Plaintiffs allege that the devices are defectively designed in a way that fosters harmful bacterial colonization and that companies failed to adequately warn patients or conduct sufficient premarket testing to uncover long-term health risks.
Legal actions seek compensation for a range of damages, including medical costs, lost wages, pain and suffering, and diminished quality of life.
As more scientific evidence emerges, the role of microbial colonization is becoming a key element in both understanding mesh complications and holding manufacturers accountable.
A new study published in Nature Reviews Urology has found that microscopic particles from transvaginal mesh (TVM) implants may trigger autoimmune responses, even after the device has been surgically removed.
The research, led by Dr. Nicholas Farr, links residual polypropylene particles—commonly used in mesh products—to Autoimmune/Inflammatory Syndrome Induced by Adjuvants (ASIA).
According to the study, these particles can remain in surrounding tissue and provoke ongoing immune system activity, potentially worsening symptoms long after mesh removal.
These findings may impact current and future transvaginal mesh lawsuits by challenging earlier conclusions that dismissed any association between mesh implants and autoimmune disease.
In particular, the new evidence calls into question a 2017 study published in the American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology, which found no systemic health risks related to mesh use.
The U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) announced a proposal to reclassify transvaginal mesh used for treating pelvic organ prolapse (POP) as a high-risk medical device.
If the proposal is finalized, manufacturers will be required to provide comprehensive data on the product’s safety and effectiveness before it can be marketed.
In addition to reclassifying the mesh itself, the FDA is also seeking to elevate the regulatory status of the surgical instruments used to implant and secure the mesh—from low-risk to moderate-risk—reflecting the growing concern over potential complications.
This move follows more than a decade of increasing scrutiny.
The FDA first flagged potential safety issues with vaginal mesh products in 2008 and later issued formal warnings and postmarket surveillance requirements in 2011 and 2012.
The proposed changes are now open for public comment for a 90-day period.
It’s important to note that these reclassifications apply only to mesh intended for vaginal POP repair and related tools; devices used for hernia repair, stress urinary incontinence, or abdominal POP procedures are not included in the proposal.
Transvaginal mesh (TVM) implants were introduced in the late 1990s as a solution for pelvic organ prolapse (POP) and stress urinary incontinence (SUI).
Intended to reinforce weakened pelvic tissues, these devices quickly gained popularity—but over time, they became linked to serious and often debilitating complications, including chronic pelvic pain, organ perforation, bleeding, and mesh erosion.
These complications have triggered a wave of litigation against mesh manufacturers, as thousands of affected women have sought accountability and compensation.
Resolution of Federal MDLs: A Major Milestone
To manage the sheer volume of cases, many lawsuits were consolidated into multidistrict litigations (MDLs), streamlining the legal process while enabling more efficient case resolution.
The final federal MDL for transvaginal mesh concluded in November 2022, with numerous claims settled during the proceedings.
However, the end of the MDL does not prevent individuals from filing personal lawsuits.
Women who have experienced mesh-related injuries can still bring individual claims tailored to their specific circumstances.
Why Individual Claims Still Matter
Pursuing a separate lawsuit outside the MDL framework offers several potential advantages:
Even with many high-profile settlements behind them, manufacturers continue to face litigation.
For example, Johnson & Johnson agreed to a $120 million settlement in January 2016 to resolve around 3,000 claims.
Yet, many lawsuits remain active, with both federal and state courts still handling unresolved cases.
In August 2024, 140 women in the UK received compensation for injuries linked to vaginal mesh implants.
The claims targeted major manufacturers, including Johnson & Johnson, C.R. Bard, and Boston Scientific, and involved complications such as persistent pain, organ perforation, and mesh migration.
Women considering filing a lawsuit related to transvaginal mesh injuries should keep the following in mind:
Despite the closure of the federal MDL, transvaginal mesh litigation remains active and evolving.
Women who continue to suffer from complications should explore their legal options, especially as new studies and settlements highlight the ongoing impact of these devices.
Let me know if you’d like this turned into a landing page, newsletter piece, or formatted infographic summary.
An Oregon jury has ruled in favor of the defense in a medical malpractice lawsuit involving the implantation of a pelvic mesh device.
The plaintiff accused urologist Dr. Michael Lemmers and the Legacy Health hospital system of negligence, alleging they failed to obtain proper informed consent before implanting the Boston Scientific “Uphold Lite” mesh device during a 2019 procedure to treat pelvic organ prolapse.
The case focused on claims that the patient was not adequately informed of the potential risks associated with the device.
Informed consent cases, particularly in the context of complex medical procedures, are notoriously difficult to win, and the jury’s decision reflects that legal reality.
New Mesh Lawsuits Continue Post-MDL Closure
Despite the formal closure of the vaginal mesh multidistrict litigation (MDL), new lawsuits are still being filed in state courts across the United States.
As of late 2024, legal efforts to hold mesh manufacturers accountable remain active, though outcomes have varied.
Internationally, the issue also persists.
In August 2024, more than 100 women in England received financial settlements for serious complications resulting from mesh implants.
Reported injuries included persistent pain, perforation of the bladder and bowel, bleeding, and mesh erosion through the vaginal wall.
While exact compensation amounts were not made public, the total reached into the millions of pounds.
Study Links Mesh Material to Rapid Degradation
Adding to the growing scrutiny, a recent study from the University of Sheffield in the UK has raised new concerns about the design and material quality of vaginal and pelvic mesh implants.
Researchers found that the plastic commonly used in these devices begins to degrade within just 60 days of implantation.
The study concluded that the material—widely believed to be biocompatible—may actually be prone to early breakdown, leading to inflammation, tissue damage, and long-term health complications.
These findings lend further support to ongoing claims that many mesh implants were fundamentally flawed in both design and manufacturing.
Groundbreaking research from the University of Sheffield has revealed significant flaws in the polypropylene (PP) material commonly used in transvaginal mesh (TVM) implants.
The study found that PP begins to degrade within just 60 days of being implanted, with further structural breakdown evident by 180 days.
This degradation, marked by oxidation and the buildup of polypropylene particles in nearby tissues, challenges long-held beliefs about the material’s chemical stability.
As the mesh deteriorates, it causes a growing disconnect between the implant and surrounding tissue, which can trigger inflammation, tissue damage, and chronic pain.
These findings call into question the overall biocompatibility of PP-based mesh devices, which have already been linked to serious complications such as pelvic pain, infections, and urinary problems.
The research adds scientific weight to the ongoing debate about the safety of these implants.
In response to mounting concerns, the NHS placed strict limitations on the use of TVM in 2018, allowing procedures only under a high-surveillance protocol.
The latest study further supports the claims of many women who have filed lawsuits after suffering long-term health issues from mesh implants.
In England alone, more than 100 cases have recently been resolved through settlements.
Advocates are now calling for urgent reforms and the development of safer, more sustainable materials to prevent further harm to patients undergoing treatment for pelvic organ prolapse and stress urinary incontinence.
Recent research has revealed that polypropylene—the primary material used in transvaginal mesh (TVM) implants—begins to break down within just 60 days of being implanted in the pelvic region.
This finding intensifies ongoing concerns about the long-term safety of TVM devices, which have been used to treat pelvic organ prolapse (POP) and stress urinary incontinence (SUI) but are linked to a range of serious complications.
Conducted by scientists at the University of Sheffield in the UK, the study used a sheep model, chosen for its anatomical similarities to the human pelvis.
Researchers discovered that polypropylene mesh became stiffer over time, exhibited signs of oxidation, and shed microscopic particles that were absorbed into the surrounding tissue—concentrations of which increased the longer the mesh remained implanted.
These results have sparked renewed calls from patient advocates and medical professionals for urgent reform.
Campaigners argue that the material was not sufficiently evaluated for pelvic use before being introduced into clinical practice.
Sheila MacNeil, an emeritus professor in biomaterials and tissue engineering, stressed the urgent need to develop safer alternatives to prevent further patient harm.
The study’s lead author, Dr. Nicholas Farr, expressed hope that the findings will encourage manufacturers to innovate and improve implant safety.
Meanwhile, Kath Sansom, founder of the patient advocacy group Sling The Mesh, cited the study as further proof of the dangers of polypropylene mesh and called for immediate changes in how pelvic conditions are treated.
This research follows a group settlement in which over 100 women in England received compensation after experiencing debilitating side effects from TVM implants.
Reported complications include chronic pelvic pain, infections, urinary difficulties, and the need for multiple revision surgeries.
The growing body of evidence has prompted medical and legal communities alike to push for stricter oversight, improved patient education, and the exploration of non-mesh alternatives for managing POP and SUI.
The Bard Hernia Mesh multidistrict litigation (MDL) has taken a significant step forward, with a major settlement bringing relief to thousands of affected individuals.
C.R. Bard has agreed to resolve the vast majority of claims filed in both the federal MDL and Rhode Island state court, settling more than 30,000 cases related to injuries caused by its hernia mesh products.
This marks a major conclusion to a lengthy and challenging legal battle that has been ongoing since the MDL was established in August 2018.
The litigation experienced delays due to the COVID-19 pandemic and a series of complex trials across multiple jurisdictions.
A turning point came in early 2024, when the MDL judge paused a planned bellwether trial and ordered the parties into mediation.
Following months of negotiations, the parties have now reached an agreement to compensate victims who experienced complications from Bard’s allegedly defective hernia mesh devices.
The settlement represents a substantial victory for plaintiffs and moves the litigation closer to closure for thousands of injured patients.
The United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit has affirmed a lower court ruling in the case of Virginia Redding v. Coloplast Corporation, a significant decision in the ongoing litigation over vaginal mesh implants.
The appeal focused on whether Redding’s product liability claim was filed within the statute of limitations under Florida law.
Redding filed her lawsuit on September 18, 2014, asserting that vaginal mesh devices manufactured by Coloplast were defectively designed and caused her serious injuries.
Coloplast contested the suit, arguing it was time-barred due to Florida’s four-year statute of limitations for product liability claims.
The company claimed Redding began experiencing symptoms more than four years before initiating legal action.
However, the appellate court agreed with the lower court’s finding that Redding was not aware—and had no reasonable way of knowing—before September 18, 2010, that her injuries were specifically linked to the mesh implants.
As a result, the court ruled that her claim was timely.
The jury in the original trial awarded Redding $2.5 million in damages.
Coloplast’s post-trial attempt to overturn the verdict through a renewed motion for judgment as a matter of law was also denied by the district court.
This decision underscores the legal challenges involved in product liability cases, particularly around the discovery of injury and the timing of legal claims.
It also marks another notable outcome in the broader landscape of vaginal mesh litigation.
A Philadelphia jury has awarded $20 million in damages to a woman from Cinnaminson, New Jersey, who suffered severe complications from a vaginal mesh implant manufactured by Ethicon, a division of Johnson & Johnson.
The verdict, reached in late April in the Philadelphia Court of Common Pleas, concluded a three-week trial centered on the safety and performance of the TVT-Secur transvaginal mesh device.
The woman had the mesh implanted to treat stress urinary incontinence, but within two months, the device began to erode.
Despite undergoing three separate surgeries in an attempt to remove the mesh, remnants of the device remain in her body, resulting in chronic pain and ongoing urinary issues.
Jurors determined that the device failed to perform as intended and that Ethicon failed to adequately warn healthcare providers and patients about the potential risks.
The jury awarded $2.5 million to cover medical expenses and other non-economic damages.
Additionally, $17.5 million in punitive damages was granted, signaling the jury’s conclusion that Ethicon’s conduct was grossly negligent.
The TVT-Secur device, which was used to address pelvic organ prolapse and urinary incontinence, has since been recalled. However, many patients who received this and other similar mesh products continue to face serious health complications.
This case adds to a growing list of high-value verdicts against Ethicon and Johnson & Johnson over their transvaginal mesh devices, which have been the subject of ongoing litigation due to their link to painful and often irreversible injuries.
The U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has concluded its review of final reports from the mandated 522 postmarket surveillance studies on surgical mesh mini-slings used to treat stress urinary incontinence (SUI).
The findings indicate that SUI mini-slings perform as effectively as traditional mid-urethral slings over a 36-month period.
These studies revealed comparable rates and types of adverse events and re-surgery between mini-slings and traditional slings.
As part of its comprehensive evaluation, the FDA also conducted a systematic review of 30 randomized controlled trials published between 2013 and 2023.
This literature review further confirmed that mini-slings offer similar safety and efficacy outcomes when compared to conventional mid-urethral slings.
Surgical mesh slings remain a common treatment for SUI, and the FDA had previously required manufacturers to conduct long-term follow-up research specifically for mini-slings to assess their safety profile.
The newly released data reinforces confidence in the use of mini-slings as a viable option for managing SUI.
The FDA has stated it will continue to monitor these devices to ensure ongoing patient safety and optimal treatment outcomes.
The legal fight over vaginal mesh implants remains active, with many women still suffering from severe and lasting complications despite widespread awareness of the risks and a surge of lawsuits against manufacturers.
Originally intended to treat urinary incontinence and pelvic organ prolapse, transvaginal mesh implants have instead caused significant harm for countless women worldwide.
Commonly reported issues include chronic pain, mesh erosion into surrounding tissue, and worsening incontinence—often more severe than the original condition.
These complications frequently require multiple revision surgeries, yet complete relief is often out of reach.
Once implanted, the mesh is difficult to remove, and many patients are left dealing with persistent symptoms and long-term medical challenges.
The scale of harm has led to extensive litigation and large financial settlements.
Both healthcare providers and manufacturers now face mounting scrutiny over their role in promoting and utilizing these implants without fully disclosing the potential dangers.
Many women have successfully pursued legal action, bringing attention to the importance of informed consent and the need to consider non-surgical alternatives before proceeding with mesh procedures.
Still, too many patients continue to endure debilitating side effects, with little warning about the possible outcomes.
For those affected, the consequences are far-reaching.
Chronic pain, urinary issues, and the emotional burden of these conditions can significantly diminish quality of life, impacting everything from daily routines to long-term physical and mental well-being.
The legal battle over vaginal mesh implants remains active, with recent developments underscoring the serious complications many patients have faced.
In the United Kingdom, a woman was awarded a £1 million settlement after enduring chronic pain and persistent health problems linked to a mesh implant procedure.
Vaginal mesh devices, commonly used to address urinary incontinence and pelvic organ prolapse, have been associated with a range of adverse effects.
Patients frequently report long-term pain, mesh erosion, and the recurrence of symptoms the implants were intended to resolve.
In numerous cases, surgeries were performed prematurely or without fully exploring less invasive alternatives, resulting in preventable harm.
These outcomes have prompted a wave of lawsuits, as individuals seek accountability and compensation for the physical, emotional, and financial toll they’ve endured.
For those affected by unnecessary or mishandled mesh surgeries, legal options may be available.
Compensation can help cover medical expenses, future care, lost income, and other damages.
The growing number of settlements emphasizes the critical need for informed consent and more cautious surgical decision-making.
If you’ve experienced complications from a vaginal mesh implant, you may be eligible to pursue a claim and receive the support you deserve.
Emerging scientific research is shedding light on safer materials for vaginal mesh implants, with promising findings favoring Polyvinylidene Fluoride (PVDF) over the commonly used polypropylene.
A 2023 study published in Diagnostics reports that PVDF meshes demonstrate greater biostability, trigger less inflammation, and result in reduced scarring—factors that significantly lower the risk of chronic pain following surgery.
In a three-year follow-up involving women treated for anterior or apical vaginal prolapse using PVDF meshes, 85.2% experienced successful anatomical outcomes, with few reports of complications like mesh exposure or discomfort.
Despite these advantages, PVDF meshes have yet to gain widespread use in the United States, primarily due to their higher cost compared to traditional polypropylene products.
Dr. Greg Vigna, a physician and legal advocate specializing in mid-urethral sling injuries, has voiced strong concerns about the continued reliance on polypropylene meshes in the U.S.
He urges the adoption of PVDF as a safer alternative and leads a legal team that represents women nationwide who have experienced complications from mesh implants.
Across the globe, countless women have undergone transvaginal mesh procedures without receiving full and accurate information about the risks involved—leading many to suffer severe, life-altering complications.
A recent review of transvaginal mesh case records uncovered alarming patterns in how these surgeries were communicated to patients.
The investigation, which analyzed over 40,000 pages of documentation from 18 women, revealed that poor communication and misleading consent practices left many unprepared for long-term outcomes such as chronic pain, nerve damage, and limited treatment options.
The findings exposed a troubling lack of transparency from medical professionals, resulting in widespread mistrust and inadequate post-operative care.
Many patients were not informed of alternative treatments or the potential for permanent complications.
The review called for the creation of a national registry to monitor mesh implant surgeries and removals, along with major improvements in patient aftercare, medical record-keeping, and physician-patient communication.
Widespread misinformation surrounding transvaginal mesh has caused significant physical and emotional damage.
As a result, legal challenges and public reviews continue to push for critical reforms in women’s healthcare and surgical accountability.
Our Vaginal Mesh Lawyers are actively accepting clients.
Initially introduced to treat stress urinary incontinence and pelvic organ prolapse following childbirth, vaginal mesh implants have led to widespread health complications, fueling a rise in lawsuits across the globe.
In Scotland alone, thousands of women underwent transvaginal mesh procedures before the practice was halted in 2018.
Many of these women have since reported debilitating side effects such as chronic pain, autoimmune responses, and extreme fatigue.
In many cases, the need for private treatment options has added emotional and financial strain.
To address the crisis, the Complex Mesh Surgical Service (CMSS) was created to assist affected patients.
However, numerous women have voiced frustrations with the system, citing unclear referral processes, delayed appointments, and limited awareness of mesh-related complications among general practitioners.
Some women even found themselves having to educate their own doctors about the risks and symptoms.
The severity of these complications has forced many individuals to leave their jobs and seek mesh removal surgeries—often traveling outside of Scotland for more specialized care.
As a result, a growing number of women are turning to the legal system in pursuit of justice through vaginal mesh lawsuits.
Advocates continue to call for better clinical guidance, quicker access to care, and more comprehensive treatment options to support those living with the long-term effects of mesh implants.
TruLaw is now accepting vaginal mesh lawsuit clients.
Our legal team is currently representing individuals who have suffered complications from transvaginal mesh implants.
A recent case involves a 57-year-old woman from Canada who has initiated legal action against Johnson & Johnson, alleging severe health problems resulting from a surgical mesh device manufactured by its subsidiary, Ethicon.
The mesh was implanted in 2008 following a partial hysterectomy, and according to the complaint, it later caused chronic pain and internal organ damage.
For more than a decade, the plaintiff endured worsening symptoms that severely impacted her quality of life, including her ability to work and maintain personal relationships.
In 2021, medical evaluations revealed that the mesh had disintegrated and embedded itself into her organs.
This led to recurrent infections and required multiple surgeries—some of them emergency procedures—to prevent life-threatening sepsis.
Although Johnson & Johnson maintains that its pelvic mesh products are safe and effective, the company attributes its withdrawal from the market to business decisions, not safety concerns.
This position stands in contrast to mounting evidence and lawsuits worldwide that suggest serious risks linked to these devices.
Ethicon has already pulled several mesh products off the market—both for pelvic floor disorders and hernia repair—after reports surfaced of higher-than-expected failure rates and a significant number of revision surgeries.
These product removals have further intensified legal scrutiny and public criticism.
This new lawsuit, filed in Winnipeg, joins a growing wave of international litigation involving surgical mesh.
In countries such as Scotland, governments have begun offering support to affected women, including financial assistance for corrective mesh removal surgeries.
If you or a loved one has experienced complications from a transvaginal mesh implant, contact us today to explore your legal options.
The ongoing vaginal mesh litigation centers around serious complications linked to transvaginal mesh implants, which were originally developed to treat pelvic organ prolapse (POP) and stress urinary incontinence (SUI).
Thousands of patients have come forward, claiming that these implants caused severe and often debilitating side effects. Reported complications include mesh erosion, infections, organ perforation, and painful intercourse.
Many individuals have required additional surgeries to correct these issues, and some continue to suffer from long-term pain and reduced quality of life.
Prominent medical device manufacturers facing legal challenges include Ethicon (a division of Johnson & Johnson), C.R. Bard, American Medical Systems, and others.
Plaintiffs argue that these companies failed to thoroughly test their products and did not adequately warn patients or healthcare providers about the potential for significant harm.
While many claims have been resolved through settlements, others remain active in court.
In response to growing scrutiny and accumulating evidence, some manufacturers have discontinued certain transvaginal mesh products altogether.
The complications from transvaginal mesh implants are leading to numerous personal injury claims to pursue compensation.
The transvaginal mesh lawsuit is rooted in the various complications that patients have experienced after receiving mesh implants.
These complications range from discomfort to severe medical issues.
Below is a detailed list of common concerns reported:
Several types of transvaginal mesh implants have been used in surgeries, which vary in design, purpose, and the material they are made from.
The primary categories of these implants are as follows:
Patients who have experienced serious complications from vaginal mesh implants also face potential long-term health risks.
The long-term risks of vaginal mesh implants include, but are not limited to:
The complications associated with transvaginal mesh have led to the initiation of legal action by affected individuals around the country.
A patient may seek to file a transvaginal mesh suit on various grounds, including product liability, negligence, and breach of warranty.
Litigants claim that the mesh caused complications, like infection or erosion, and that manufacturers failed to warn of the risks adequately.
A strong case against vaginal mesh manufacturers relies on factors such as documented injuries, identifiable products, adherence to the statute of limitations, and evidence of negligence.
Individuals should seek a thorough case review from a knowledgeable attorney experienced in vaginal mesh cases to explore their legal options.
TruLaw can also provide valuable resources and information in such cases.
For a good vaginal mesh case, certain criteria are typically evaluated:
Contact TruLaw using the chat on this page to receive an instant case evaluation for the transvaginal mesh lawsuit today.
It can inform individuals of their legal options, building on the legal groundwork laid by prior transvaginal mesh lawsuits.
The transvaginal mesh lawsuit process involves several steps from the initiation to the potential resolution, including through settlements and verdicts.
Individuals harmed by transvaginal mesh products need to navigate the legal landscape to seek compensation.
A number of actions need to be taken when initiating a transvaginal mesh lawsuit.
Initiating a transvaginal mesh lawsuit involves the following steps:
In a transvaginal mesh lawsuit, it is important to review and manage medical records and evidence.
The expert testimony can be used to establish a relationship between the vaginal mesh implants and the injury to determine the admissibility of evidence.
The discovery process also allows both parties to exchange relevant information and investigate the facts of the case.
Once a mesh lawsuit has been initiated, the following phases are crucial:
A transvaginal mesh lawsuit can either result in settlements or trials.
Settlements in the transvaginal mesh lawsuit are made outside of court and depend on factors such as injury severity and past rulings.
Trials, on the other hand, occur when no agreement is reached and can impact compensation outcomes.
Transvaginal mesh lawsuits often conclude in one of two ways:
The transvaginal mesh lawsuit has seen significant evolution over time.
This compels manufacturers of vaginal mesh to settle numerous individual claims and reshape the medical device industry.
Legal actions against transvaginal mesh manufacturers have been instrumental in exposing the potential risks associated with these medical devices.
The following list captures some significant entities that have faced lawsuits:
The history of transvaginal mesh litigation has led to several high-profile settlements and verdicts.
Some of the most significant are outlined below:
Current vaginal mesh lawsuits are often consolidated into multidistrict litigation (MDL) for efficiency, primarily in the Southern District of West Virginia.
The United States Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation oversees these cases, managing pre-trial proceedings, while new lawsuits continue to emerge as patients report harm from transvaginal mesh products.
The current vaginal mesh lawsuits present a complex legal environment that reflects the experiences of countless patients affected by these devices:
When seeking justice for a vaginal mesh injury, finding experienced legal representation and compiling comprehensive medical documentation are crucial steps for plaintiffs.
Choosing an adept transvaginal mesh lawyer is fundamental in navigating a vaginal mesh case.
A good lawyer will have a firm understanding of medical device litigation and be able to advise on the complexities of mesh cases.
The right legal team provides invaluable guidance through the legal process and helps secure compensation for medical expenses incurred.
Here are key considerations when seeking legal help:
The cornerstone of any vaginal mesh lawsuit is the aggregation of detailed medical records that corroborate the extent of injury and negligence.
Precise and thorough medical evidence can substantiate claims against manufacturers and aid in receiving accurate compensation for injuries.
Ensuring proper documentation involves:
Leveraging firms like TruLaw, which specializes in medical and legal support for mesh cases, can provide an invaluable advantage to those affected by vaginal mesh injuries.
They play a key role in ensuring the collective medical and legal aspects are thoroughly and expertly managed.
The statute of limitations for a transvaginal mesh lawsuit update can vary by state.
Typically, it ranges from one to six years from the date of injury or from when the injury was discovered.
Several factors influence the average payout for bladder mesh lawsuits, including the severity of injuries, medical costs incurred, and the impact on quality of life.
Lost wages and punitive damages may also be considered.
To locate a specialized attorney for a bladder mesh lawsuit, individuals can start by seeking referrals from legal professionals and researching attorneys with experience in medical device litigation.
Online legal directories are another resource for finding attorneys by location and specialty.
The latest updates on bladder sling lawsuit settlements indicate that there are ongoing multidistrict litigations, and many manufacturers have settled several cases.
Settlement amounts and terms are often confidential, with publicly reported figures varying widely.
Complications leading to earlier vaginal mesh lawsuits have included mesh erosion, infection, chronic pain, and urinary problems.
These issues can necessitate additional surgeries and significantly affect a patient’s life.
Recent hernia mesh lawsuit settlements have seen a wide range of amounts.
Figures can vary significantly based on individual case details, with some settlements reaching millions while others are more modest.
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?