Attorney Jessie Paluch, founder of TruLaw, has over 25 years of experience as a personal injury and mass tort attorney, and previously worked as an international tax attorney at Deloitte. Jessie collaborates with attorneys nationwide — enabling her to share reliable, up-to-date legal information with our readers.
This article has been written and reviewed for legal accuracy and clarity by the team of writers and legal experts at TruLaw and is as accurate as possible. This content should not be taken as legal advice from an attorney. If you would like to learn more about our owner and experienced injury lawyer, Jessie Paluch, you can do so here.
TruLaw does everything possible to make sure the information in this article is up to date and accurate. If you need specific legal advice about your case, contact us by using the chat on the bottom of this page. This article should not be taken as advice from an attorney.
On this page, we’ll provide an overview of Transvaginal Mesh Lawsuits, the legal basis for transvaginal mesh claims, recent developments of ongoing transvaginal mesh litigation, and much more.
Some of the key aspects of transvaginal mesh lawsuits include, but are not limited to:
If you’ve suffered complications from a transvaginal mesh implant, you may be entitled to significant compensation through a mesh lawsuit.
Contact TruLaw using the chat on this page for a free case evaluation to learn more about your legal rights and the process of filing a transvaginal mesh claim.
Faced with mounting adverse event reports, the FDA issued several safety communications regarding the risks associated with transvaginal mesh products, leading to a surge in related lawsuits.
The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has actively monitored the safety of transvaginal mesh devices that repair pelvic organ prolapse (POP).
Here’s a timeline of the FDA’s actions regarding transvaginal mesh:
The increased transparency and severity of FDA warnings did not go unnoticed by the public or the legal community.
They triggered a sharp increase in transvaginal mesh lawsuits, reflecting patients’ growing concerns:
These FDA actions and subsequent legal battles highlight an ongoing concern regarding the safety of medical devices and the vigilance required to ensure patient well-being.
In recent years, several medical device companies have faced legal challenges due to the serious complications associated with transvaginal mesh products.
These lawsuits have highlighted the significant health risks posed to patients and have resulted in substantial settlements.
These companies are among those that manufactured and marketed transvaginal mesh and have since faced legal action over concerns about their products.
The following manufacturers have produced transvaginal mesh and are now confronting litigation:
Thousands of women have filed suit against manufacturers of transvaginal mesh, alleging the products caused serious health problems.
Legal cases against mesh manufacturers often involve several allegations, including:
Multidistrict litigation (MDL) and a series of bellwether trials have significantly shaped the management and outcomes of transvaginal mesh litigation.
The MDL process has consolidated many cases to streamline pretrial proceedings, while bellwether trials have guided the resolution of thousands of similar claims.
Multidistrict litigation has played a pivotal role in addressing the numerous lawsuits filed against manufacturers of transvaginal mesh devices.
Key facts about this process include:
Bellwether trials serve as early test cases and profoundly affect litigation by providing insights into how juries might respond to evidence and testimony.
Notable achievements in these trials include:
In the wake of widespread litigation concerning transvaginal mesh products, manufacturers have faced numerous lawsuits leading to substantial settlements and the resolution of multidistrict litigations (MDLs).
The transvaginal mesh litigation saw significant activity when bellwether trials provided critical outcomes that influenced large-scale settlements.
These bellwether cases serve as test trials that help parties gauge how juries might respond to evidence and testimony in similar lawsuits.
As a result of these bellwether trials, several manufacturers entered into global settlements:
The sheer number of transvaginal mesh cases filed led to the creation of multiple MDLs to manage these claims efficiently.
Many of these cases have since been resolved, deactivating many MDL dockets.
Here’s a breakdown of how these cases were addressed:
In 2023, the landscape of transvaginal mesh litigation remains active, with continued legal action and critical deadlines impacting new cases.
Individuals continue to bring forth new lawsuits against manufacturers of transvaginal mesh products.
These legal actions assert that the devices caused complications such as infection, pain, and organ perforation.
Significant litigation developments include:
The deadline to file a lawsuit, known as the statute of limitations, is a decisive factor for new claims.
This varies by state, impacting the eligibility of potential lawsuits.
Essential points regarding statutes of limitations:
It remains essential for individuals affected by vaginal mesh maker complications to seek timely legal advice considering these constraints and the ongoing nature of the litigation.
When considering a vaginal mesh lawsuit for complications related to transvaginal mesh, understanding the eligibility criteria is essential.
Two primary considerations include the onset of complications and adherence to state-specific time constraints for filing.
Complications may arise at different times for patients with transvaginal mesh implants.
Onset timing is a key point of consideration in determining eligibility for litigation.
Symptoms such as mesh erosion and organ perforation can be particularly impactful.
Individuals should consider these crucial signs as potential prompts for legal action:
These often indicate a product’s failure and can establish a foundation for claiming personal injury.
Each state’s laws govern the time limits for filing personal injury claims.
In pelvic mesh cases, the statutes of limitations are pivotal in determining if a new vaginal mesh lawsuit can proceed.
The following list illustrates time-sensitive considerations for potential claimants:
Familiarity with these statutes and their application to an individual’s circumstances is imperative when pursuing legal recourse for transvaginal mesh injuries.
When examining the settlement values of transvaginal mesh lawsuits, it’s evident that outcomes depend on individual vaginal mesh case details and the extent of patients’ complications.
Transvaginal mesh implants have been associated with a range of complications, leading to significant settlements.
Here is a list of common complications associated with transvaginal mesh implants:
These medical complications often necessitate additional surgeries, increasing patient suffering and medical expenses.
Many factors influence a woman’s compensation in a transvaginal mesh lawsuit.
Settlement payouts for transvaginal mesh lawsuits can vary widely, influenced by several key factors:
Transvaginal mesh settlements also account for the manufacturer’s conduct, such as failing to warn about potential risks.
In cases where manufacturers have been found to have engaged in particularly egregious behavior, punitive damages may also be awarded.
Recent legal proceedings have seen substantial settlements for claimants.
Notably, Washington residents received details on obtaining their share of a $9.9 million recovery after the state sued Johnson & Johnson for failing to disclose the risks of their surgical mesh devices.
In another case, Johnson & Johnson and Ethicon, Inc. agreed to a $116.9 million settlement over deceptive marketing allegations, with the investigation spanning 41 states and the District of Columbia.
Compensation for bladder mesh lawsuits can vary significantly based on numerous factors, but it typically ranges from thousands to millions of dollars.
The exact amount typically relates to the severity of injuries, the number of surgeries required, and the impact on the claimant’s quality of life.
Every state has its statute of limitations ranging from 1 to 6 years, generally starting from the date the claimant either underwent mesh surgery or discovered the complications related to the mesh.
It is imperative to consult a vaginal mesh lawyer promptly, as these time frames are a crucial determinant of claim eligibility.
Eligibility for a claim is typically established based on criteria like having had the mesh implanted, suffering complications or injuries, and meeting the lawsuit’s filing deadlines.
Consulting with an experienced attorney is important for precise eligibility assessment.
When seeking an attorney, potential claimants should look for experience with vaginal mesh device litigation, a history of successful settlement outcomes, readiness to go to trial if necessary, and a transparent fee structure.
It’s also beneficial to select someone who communicates clearly and compassionately.
Frequent complications encouraging lawsuits are chronic pain, infection, mesh erosion, and organ perforation.
Lawsuits also cite instances of urinary problems and the need for additional surgeries to remove or adjust the mesh.
Experienced Attorney & Legal SaaS CEO
With over 25 years of legal experience, Jessie is an Illinois lawyer, a CPA, and a mother of three. She spent the first decade of her career working as an international tax attorney at Deloitte.
In 2009, Jessie co-founded her own law firm with her husband – which has scaled to over 30 employees since its conception.
In 2016, Jessie founded TruLaw, which allows her to collaborate with attorneys and legal experts across the United States on a daily basis. This hypervaluable network of experts is what enables her to share reliable legal information with her readers!
You can learn more about the Transvaginal Mesh Lawsuit by visiting any of our pages listed below:
Here, at TruLaw, we’re committed to helping victims get the justice they deserve.
Alongside our partner law firms, we have successfully collected over $3 Billion in verdicts and settlements on behalf of injured individuals.
Would you like our help?
At TruLaw, we fiercely combat corporations that endanger individuals’ well-being. If you’ve suffered injuries and believe these well-funded entities should be held accountable, we’re here for you.
With TruLaw, you gain access to successful and seasoned lawyers who maximize your chances of success. Our lawyers invest in you—they do not receive a dime until your lawsuit reaches a successful resolution!
Do you believe you’re entitled to compensation?
Use our Instant Case Evaluator to find out in as little as 60 seconds!
AFFF Lawsuit claims are being filed against manufacturers of aqueous film-forming foam (AFFF), commonly used in firefighting.
Claims allege that companies such as 3M, DuPont, and Tyco Fire Products failed to adequately warn users about the potential dangers of AFFF exposure — including increased risks of various cancers and diseases.
Suboxone Tooth Decay Lawsuit claims are being filed against Indivior, the manufacturer of Suboxone, a medication used to treat opioid addiction.
Claims allege that Indivior failed to adequately warn users about the potential dangers of severe tooth decay and dental injuries associated with Suboxone’s sublingual film version.
Social Media Harm Lawsuits are being filed against social media companies for allegedly causing mental health issues in children and teens.
Claims allege that companies like Meta, Google, ByteDance, and Snap designed addictive platforms that led to anxiety, depression, and other mental health issues without adequately warning users or parents.
Transvaginal Mesh Lawsuits are being filed against manufacturers of transvaginal mesh products used to treat pelvic organ prolapse (POP) and stress urinary incontinence (SUI).
Claims allege that companies like Ethicon, C.R. Bard, and Boston Scientific failed to adequately warn about potential dangers — including erosion, pain, and infection.
Bair Hugger Warming Blanket Lawsuits involve claims against 3M — alleging their surgical warming blankets caused severe infections and complications (particularly in hip and knee replacement surgeries).
Plaintiffs claim 3M failed to warn about potential risks — despite knowing about increased risk of deep joint infections since 2011.
Baby Formula NEC Lawsuit claims are being filed against manufacturers of cow’s milk-based baby formula products.
Claims allege that companies like Abbott Laboratories (Similac) and Mead Johnson & Company (Enfamil) failed to warn about the increased risk of necrotizing enterocolitis (NEC) in premature infants.
Here, at TruLaw, we’re committed to helping victims get the justice they deserve.
Alongside our partner law firms, we have successfully collected over $3 Billion in verdicts and settlements on behalf of injured individuals.
Would you like our help?