J&J To Pay $70 Million in Talc Ovarian Cancer Verdict

Call 888-341-1405 for a free consultation with a recognized leader in personal injury and medical device litigation. You can also contact us online to discuss the details of your case.

By: Marilyn McGoldrick, Esq.

A St. Louis jury awarded a California woman $70 million dollars in her lawsuit claiming that years of using Johnson & Johnson’s talc baby powder caused her ovarian cancer. This is the third straight multi-million dollar award against Johnson & Johnson for women who developed ovarian cancer after using J&J’s talc baby powder or Shower to Shower powder. Despite the verdicts, Johnson & Johnson continues to sell talcum powder products throughout the world.

The 63-year-old plaintiff, Deborah Giannecchini, used Johnson & Johnson’s baby powder for feminine hygiene for four decades before she was diagnosed with Stage IV ovarian cancer in 2012. She has undergone multiple surgeries, radiation, and chemotherapy to treat the cancer. Evidence was introduced that she has an 80% chance of dying in the next two years.

Giannecchini was quoted in the St. Louis Dispatch:

“There isn’t a way to describe how you feel emotionally when you’re told you probably won’t make it beyond the next year,” She had used talc-containing J&J products for more than 39 years, she said. Talc was found in her ovaries.

“I had no idea there was any risk involved with using them,” she said. “It was startling to hear.”

Finding that Johnson & Johnson was negligent, the jury awarded Giannecchini a total of $70.075 million dollars. The verdict was for $575,000 in medical bills, $2 million dollars in compensatory damages, $65 million in punitive damages against Johnson & Johnson, and $2.5 million in punitive damages against Johnson & Johnson’s talc supplier, Imerys. This is the first time Imerys was held liable for damages in a talc ovarian cancer case.

It was reported that one of the jurors refused to sign the verdict form because she didn’t believe the award of $70 million dollars was high enough.

This verdict is the third large talc powder verdict against Johnson & Johnson for a woman who developed ovarian cancer after using J&J talcum powder products; the first of these, in February resulted in a $72 million dollar award; the second, in May, was an award for $55 million dollars.

Johnson & Johnson has announced that it will appeal this verdict, as it has done with the prior verdicts. Almost 2000 cases are pending around the country claiming J&J didn’t warn consumers of the risks of using talcum powder as advertised.

If you use baby powder, rather than using a product containing talc, look for a powder made of some other material, such as cornstarch. If you believe you or a loved one has been diagnosed with ovarian cancer that may have been caused by talcum powder, call Marilyn McGoldrick at Thornton Law Firm for a free, confidential consultation. You can call our defective product attorneys at 1-888-341-1405 or tell us your story online for a no-obligation evaluation of your legal rights. As with all legal claims, talc powder claims have short time limits. Seek legal advice as soon as possible as legal time limits are strictly enforced.

Zecuity Migraine Patch May Cause Burns and Scarring

Teva

 

 

 

By: Marilyn McGoldrick, Esq.

Published on June 20, 2016

The Zecuity Migraine Patch (sumatriptan iontophoretic transdermal system) is being investigated by the FDA for potentially causing serious burns and permanent scarring. The manufacturer, Teva Pharmaceuticals, has temporarily stopped selling, marketing and distributing the Zecuity skin patch after receiving what the FDA described as “a large number” of serious adverse skin reactions. In a letter to healthcare providers, Teva outlined these skin reactions, including:

  • Burns
  • Scars
  • Severe redness
  • Cracked skin
  • Blistering
  • Welts
  • Burns or scars where the patch was worn
  • Severe pain
  • Itching
  • Burning
  • Skin discoloration that lasts months

The Zecuity patch is a battery-operated, disposable patch intended to treat migraine headaches. The patient wraps the Zecuity patch around their thigh or upper arm to deliver the medicine sumatriptan through the skin. The patch is supposed to be worn for four (4) hours. The Zecuity patch has only been on the market since September of 2015.

The FDA announced it was investigating the risk of burns and scars with the Zecuity (sumatriptan) migraine patch on June 2, 2016. Teva Pharmaceutical announced the temporary suspension of sales eight days later on June 10, 2016.

If you have any Zecuity patches, stop using them and contact your doctor about another migraine medication. Patients and physicians can report adverse events to Teva at 1-800-896-5855 and to the FDA’s MedWatch Adverse Events Reporting Program.

If you have suffered burns or scarring or other severe reactions after using the Zecuity migraine patch, you may contact the Boston law firm of Thornton Law Firm LLP online or at 1-888-341-1405 for a free consultation with a recognized leader in Massachusetts drug and medical device litigation. There is no obligation and all consultations are completely confidential. Like all legal claims, Zecuity patch claims have short, strictly enforced time limits. Do not delay seeking legal advice.

J&J To Pay $55 Million for Talc Ovarian Cancer

Call 888-341-1405 for a free consultation with a recognized leader in personal injury and medical device litigation. You can also contact us online to discuss the details of your case.

By: Marilyn McGoldrick, Esq.

NOTE: This verdict was overturned by the Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District, based on the Supreme Court decision in Bristol-Myers Squibb v. Superior Court of California, San Francisco County, et al., 582 U.S.___ (2017), for lack of personal jurisdiction.

A South Dakota woman was awarded $55 million dollars against Johnson & Johnson for developing ovarian cancer after decades of using J&J talcum powder products. The verdict is the second successive multi-million dollar verdict against Johnson & Johnson in the past two months for women who were diagnosed with ovarian cancer after using talcum powder for many years. The jury awarded $5 million dollars in compensatory damages and $50 million dollars in punitive damages.

The plaintiff, Gloria Ristesund, was diagnosed with ovarian cancer in 2011 after using J&J Baby Powder and Shower to Shower powder as advertised, on her genital area, for almost 39 years. She is in remission after undergoing a full hysterectomy. Her lawsuit charged Johnson & Johnson of failing to warn of the cancer risk of using talcum powder or failing to remove talc from the powder and replace it with cornstarch which has similar soothing properties. The jury found in her favor after one day of deliberations following a three-week trial.

Internal Johnson & Johnson documents were introduced into evidence showing the company was aware of health concerns about talcum powder since the 1970s. A 1992 J&J document suggested targeting sales to high users of talcum powder to increase sales. Talc was found in Ristesund’s ovarian tissue after the hysterectomy.

This verdict comes on the heels of a similar case in February in which the survivors of a woman who died of ovarian cancer after using Johnson & Johnson talc powder were awarded $72 million dollars.

Johnson & Johnson has announced that it will appeal this verdict as well as the prior verdict. Another 1200 cases remain pending around the country alleging J&J failed to warn consumers of the risks of using talc powder.

Women who use baby powder should look for a powder made without talc, such as cornstarch powder. If you or a loved one has been diagnosed with ovarian cancer after using talcum powder, call the defective product lawyers at Thornton Law Firm for a confidential, no-obligation consultation. You can call Attorney Marilyn McGoldrick at 1-888-341-1405 or tell us your story online for a free evaluation of your legal rights. All legal claims have short time limits, so seek legal advice as soon as possible.

J&J DePuy Ordered To Pay $502 Million for Pinnacle Hips

By: Marilyn McGoldrick, Esq.

Posted on March 18, 2016

A federal jury awarded over $500 million dollars to 5 patients who claimed injuries from their Johnson & Johnson DePuy Pinnacle metal hip implants. The verdict was delivered after a week of deliberation following two months of trial. The cases were consolidated for trial by U.S. District Judge Ed Kinkeade, who oversees the Pinnacle multi-district litigation in Dallas, Texas.

The jury awarded $142 million in actual damages to the five plaintiffs, Texas residents Margaret Aoki, Jay Christopher, Donald Greer, Richard Klusmann, and Robert Peterson. The jury awarded $360 million in punitive damages. The verdict is the second largest verdict in the United States this year.

Each plaintiff was implanted with DePuy Pinnacle metal-on-metal hip implants (Ultamet Liner) that failed and had to be surgically removed and replaced. They presented evidence that they experienced leaching of cobalt & chromium metals into their bloodstreams, and suffered metallosis, tissue necrosis, severe pain and inflammation of surrounding tissue, bone erosion, and other problems.

The jury found that the metal-on-metal Pinnacle hip implants were defective, and that Johnson & Johnson knew about the defects but failed to warn doctors and patients of the risks. The jury heard that Johnson & Johnson aggressively marketed the Pinnacle hips as long-lasting, durable, and safe. Evidence was presented that J&J paid bribes and kickbacks overseas, and that J&J marketing and promotion in the U.S. included paying doctors millions of dollars to promote the hips, in the process misleading doctors and patients about the safety of the devices.

This was the second federal bellwether trial (test trial) involving the Pinnacle hip implants. The first ended in a defense verdict in 2014.More than 8,000 cases remain consolidated in federal court in Texas against Johnson & Johnson for the Pinnacle hip implants; the next bellwether trial is scheduled for the fall. Johnson & Johnson has announced it will appeal this verdict.

If you received a defective metal-on-metal hip implant,including those manufactured by Biomet, Johnson & Johnson’s DePuy Orthopaedics, Stryker Orthopaedics, Wright Conserve, or Zimmer Holdings, you may be eligible to file a claim for money damages for the pain, suffering, physical injuries, lost income, medical expenses from replacement, and any other losses you suffered as a result of your injuries.  Contact the Boston law firm of Thornton Law Firm LLP online or call Attorney Marilyn McGoldrick at 1-888-341-1405 for a free consultation with a recognized leader in Massachusetts drug and medical device litigation. The consultation is free and completely confidential. We offer a fair and accurate assessment of your case. Like all legal cases, hip implant claims have short, strictly enforced time limits, and you should seek legal advice immediately.

Johnson & Johnson to Pay $72 Million in Talc Cancer Case

Call 888-341-1405 for a free consultation with a recognized leader in personal injury and medical device litigation. You can also contact us online to discuss the details of your case.

By: Marilyn McGoldrick, Esq.

NOTE: This verdict was later overturned for lack of personal jurisdiction, based on the Supreme Court decision in Bristol-Myers Squibb v. Superior Court of California, San Francisco County, et al., 582 U.S.___ (2017).

A St. Louis jury awarded $72 million dollars to the family of a woman who developed ovarian cancer after using Johnson & Johnson’s talcum powder for many years. The jury awarded $10 million dollars in compensatory damages and $62 million dollars to the family of an Alabama woman. Plaintiff Jackie Fox died of ovarian cancer on October 6th. She had used Johnson & Johnson baby powder and “Shower to Shower” talcum powder for 35 years.

Fox’s family submitted expert medical testimony that talcum powder causes ovarian cancer. Statistical evidence presented at trial also showed that 1,500 women per year die from the association between talcum powder and ovarian cancer.

While many other manufacturers now substitute corn starch for talc in baby powder, Johnson & Johnson continues to use talc in its baby powder products and continues to maintain that it is safe. The American Cancer Society advised in 1999 that women use cornstarch powder, rather than talcum powder, in the genital area.

Key evidence in the trial were internal memos from Johnson & Johnson. A 1997 memo from a J&J medical consultant, toxicologist Alfred P. Wehner, declared:

“There are at least 9 epidemiological studies published in the professional literature describing a statistically significant (albeit weak) association between hygienic talc use and ovarian cancer….Anybody who denies this risks that the talc industry will be perceived by the public like it perceives the cigarette industry: denying the obvious in the face of all evidence to the contrary.”

Other Johnson & Johnson documents showed the company discussing internally how to defend potential lawsuits, and talking about hiring a female oncologist to get their message out.

The jury forewoman, Krista Smith, called the Johnson & Johnson internal documents “decisive”, stating “It was really clear they were hiding something. All they had to do was put a warning label on.”

More than 1200 other lawsuits are still pending against J&J from women who developed ovarian cancer after using talcum powder. Johnson & Johnson is expected to appeal this verdict.

Women who use baby powder should look for a powder that is made from cornstarch, not talc. If you have been diagnosed with ovarian cancer after using talcum powder, call the defective product lawyers at Thornton Law Firm for a legal consultation. You can tell us your story online or call Attorney Marilyn McGoldrick at 1-888-341-1405 for a free, confidential evaluation of your legal rights. All legal claims have short time limits, so get legal advice quickly.

$13.5 Million Dollar Pelvic Mesh Trial Verdict Against J&J

By: Marilyn T. McGoldrick, Esq.

Posted on February 12, 2016

A Philadelphia jury has awarded $13.5 million to Sharon Carlino who claimed permanent damages from an Ethicon TVT midurethral sling mesh implant. This was the second verdict against Johnson & Johnson’s Ethicon unit in a pelvic mesh case. In December a jury awarded $12.5 million against J&J for injuries caused by another mesh product, the Ethicon ProLift pelvic organ prolapse repair kit.

The jury found that the TVT (Trans Vaginal Tape) mesh sling was not reasonably safe, and that the plaintiff’s surgeon would never have used it had he been warned of the risks. The jury awarded $3.5 million in compensatory damages and $10 million in punitive damages to Mrs. Carlino. $250,000 was awarded to her husband for injury to their marital relationship.

Sharon Carlino was implanted with the TVT mesh implant in 2005 to treat her stress urinary incontinence (SUI). She had sharp pains in her vagina and in 2007 and 2010 her doctor performed surgery to remove exposed mesh. Despite the surgeries Carlino continues to have pain to this day.

Ethicon has indicated that it will appeal the verdict.

Thornton Law Firm’s transvaginal mesh team represents women in claims against Boston Scientific, Caldera, Coloplast, Cook Medical, C.R. Bard, Inc., Ethicon/Johnson & Johnson, Mentor Worldwide, and Sofradim/Covidien. If you have a mesh implant and have experienced any side effects, including but not limited to mesh erosion, bleeding, persistent pain, mesh contraction, urinary problems, additional surgeries, infection, vaginal tightening or shortening, painful sexual intercourse, inability to engage in sexual intercourse, or organ perforation, please call attorney Marilyn McGoldrick at our toll free number 888-341-1405, or tell us your story using our online contact form for a free, confidential evaluation of your legal rights. The time limits for filing all legal claims are short. Do not delay seeking legal advice.

St. Jude Medical Recalls Defective Optisure Defibrillator Leads

By: Marilyn McGoldrick, Esq.

Posted on February 2, 2016

St. Jude Medical sent a letter to doctors in November advising that several hundred of its Optisure dual-coil defibrillator leads may not work because of damaged insulation on the leads. The insulation on the leads may have been damaged during the manufacturing process. The Optisure lead recall was then announced by the FDA and classified as a Class 1 Advisory. A Class 1 recall means the FDA believes using one of the devices could result in serious health consequences.

Optisure leads are used with implantable cardioverter defibrillators (ICDs). ICDs are used to treat heart rhythm disorders like ventricular arrhythmias, tachycardia and fibrillation. The ICD keeps track of the patient’s heart rate, and the leads deliver an electrical current from the ICD to the heart to restore normal heart rate if the heart rate is erratic or too fast.

The damaged insulation on the Optisure leads may cause the defibrillator not to work: “Depending on device programming and the depth of the inadvertent cut to the insulation, compromise of lead insulation can potentially lead to an electrical malfunction wherein the defibrillator cannot deliver appropriate high voltage therapy.”

A total of 447 St. Jude Optisure Dual Coil Defibrillation leads are recalled worldwide. Of  those, 278 were distributed in the United States. The model numbers associated with the recall are LDA220, LDA220Q, LDA230Q, and LDP220Q.

The recall of the Optisure defibrillator leads is not related to St. Jude’s recall of its Riata and Riata II leads in 2011 for premature erosion of the insulation on the wires. That recall lead to approximately 950 personal injury lawsuits against St. Jude which were settled for a total of $14.25 million last year. St. Jude also paid its shareholders $50 million to resolve claims that it provided false information in its 2009 annual report by failing to reveal its knowledge of problems with the Riata leads.

Thornton Law Firm has successfully represented plaintiffs in claims against drug and medical device manufacturers for serious injuries caused by defective  and dangerous products. For a free, confidential consultation, you can tell us your story using our online contact form or call Attorney Marilyn McGoldrick at 888-341-1405 for a no-obligation evaluation of your legal case. Time limits for filing claims are short, so seek legal advice as soon as possible.

Did Boston Scientific Smuggle Pelvic Mesh from China?

Boston_Scientific_Logo.svg

Call 1-888-341-1405 for a free consultation with a recognized leader in 
personal injury and medical device litigation. You can also contact us online to discuss the details of your case.

By: Marilyn McGoldrick, Esq.

A new lawsuit accuses transvaginal mesh manufacturer Boston Scientific of smuggling counterfeit pelvic mesh materials from China. Boston Scientific is charged with intentionally defrauding and endangering women by secretly importing defective polypropylene resin that wasn’t approved by the FDA.

According to the suit, the FDA gave 510(k) approval to Boston Scientific’s pelvic mesh devices made with polypropylene resin pellets (known as “Marlex”) manufactured by Chevron Phillips Chemical Co. But in 2005 Chevron Phillips stopped selling Marlex to them, warning that polypropylene resin should not be used in any product “involving permanent implantation in the human body or permanent contact with internal body fluids or tissues.”

In 2011, running out of their supply of Marlex (the only mesh ingredient the FDA had approved), Boston Scientific embarked on a worldwide search for a replacement product. Their search led them to Chinese supplier EMAI Plastic Raw Materials Inc., a “known counterfeiter of plastic products,” in Guangzhou, China, which claimed to have Marlex manufactured by Chevron Phillips in storage. According to the suit, “EMAI had no paperwork documenting that the product was authentic Marlex.”

To avoid detection, the material was packaged into 500 separate bags and shipped by three ocean shipments on three different dates. The complaint charges that “The deception went to high levels within BSC. There is evidence that a BSC executive made separate and contradictory reports about the origin of the resin in order to clear Chinese Customs, and then U.S. Customs.” After being smuggled, the resin was processed at Boston Scientific subsidiaries around the world and marketed to the as many as 55,000 women per year who receive transvaginal mesh implants manufactured by Boston Scientific.

Filed as a RICO (Racketeering and Corrupt Organizations Act) action, the lawsuit seeks class action status for all women who have received Boston Scientific mesh since September 2012. In addition to Boston Scientific, the defendants include Chinese supplier EMAI Plastics Raw Materials Inc., and two Boston Scientific subsidiaries, Proxy Biomedical Limited of Galway, Ireland and Luxilon Industries NV of Belgium. The lawsuit was filed in federal court in West Virginia, where all federal lawsuits for defective mesh claims are consolidated.

Boston Scientific issued a statement denying the lawsuit’s claims.

Earlier this month, the FDA reclassified surgical mesh for Pelvic Organ Prolapse (POP) a “high-risk” medical device. The agency has received tens of thousands of complaints of side effects from transvaginal mesh implants, including bleeding, pain, infection, mesh contraction, mesh erosion, mesh protruding into the vagina, urinary problems, severe pelvic pain, vaginal tightening or shortening, additional surgeries, painful sexual intercourse, inability to engage in sexual intercourse, or organ perforation. More than 70,000 lawsuits have been filed by women who have suffered complications after receiving pelvic mesh implants.

Women who have been injured by a defective transvaginal mesh implant can contact the transvaginal mesh lawyers at Thornton Law Firm for a free, no-obligation consultation. You can tell us your story online or call Attorney Marilyn McGoldrick at 888-341-1405 for a confidential evaluation of your legal case. Time limits for filing claims are short, so don’t delay seeking legal advice.

Popular Acid Reflux Drugs May Raise Kidney Disease Risk


Call 1-888-341-1405 for a free consultation with a recognized leader in 
personal injury and medical device litigation. You can also contact us online to discuss the details of your case.

By: Marilyn McGoldrick, Esq.

Popular acid reflux drugs like Nexium, Prilosec, and Prevacid — classified as Proton Pump Inhibitors (PPIs) — may lead to an increased risk of chronic kidney disease, according to a recent study published in JAMA Internal Medicine.

The study found that PPI users have a 20 to 50 percent higher risk of chronic kidney disease (CKD) than nonusers. Researchers at Johns Hopkins University in Baltimore examined large sets of data on over 250,000 patients: 10,482 participants in the Artherosclerosis Risk in Communities (ARIC) study and 248,751 outpatient PPI prescription patients in the Geisinger Health System in Pennsylvania.

The study notes that more than 15 million people in the U.S. t0ok prescription PPIs in 2013, at a cost of over $10 billion dollars.

PPIs treat heartburn and acid reflux by stopping the cells in the stomach from producing acid. This study did not find elevated rates of kidney disease when they looked at users of H2 blockers like Pepcid, Tagamet or Zantac. H2 blockers treat acid reflux and heartburn in a different way, by blocking histamine production in the cells that line the stomach.

While PPIs have been on the market since the 1980s, concerns have arisen over their safety in recent years. Researchers have suggested links between PPIs and heart attacks, as well as infection risks to hospitalized patients. The FDA issued warnings in 2010 that prescription strength PPIs may raise a patient’s risk of bone fracture.

The Johns Hopkins researchers noted that their study does not prove that PPIs cause kidney disease. Actual clinical trials would have to be conducted to make that conclusion. But physicians may exercise more caution in prescribing PPIs in light of this study. Gastroenterologist Dr. Arun Swaminath, director of the inflammatory bowel disease program at Lenox Hill Hospital in New York City, said “We have started to limit the time you have to be on it, and limit the amount you take.”

If you are taking a PPI it is important that your kidney function be carefully monitored. If you have been diagnosed with chronic kidney disease after taking a prescription PPI, call the defective drug lawyers at Thornton Law Firm for a free consultation. You can tell us your story online or call Attorney Marilyn McGoldrick at 1-888-341-1405 for a confidential, no-obligation evaluation of your legal rights.

Pelvic Mesh for POP Reclassified as “High-Risk” Device


Call 1-888-341-1405 for a free consultation with a recognized leader in 
personal injury and medical device litigation. You can also contact us online to discuss the details of your case.

By: Marilyn McGoldrick, Esq.

Transvaginally implanted mesh to treat POP now classified as high-risk

The FDA has issued a final order reclassifying transvaginal mesh used to repair Pelvic Organ Prolapse (POP) from class II (moderate-risk) to class III (high-risk). The FDA will also require manufacturers of every surgical mesh used to treat POP to conduct a PreMarket Approval application demonstrating the safety and effectiveness of their mesh product for treating POP. Manufacturers have 30 months — two and one half years — to show that their products are safe and effective for POP. These new FDA orders do not apply to mesh sold for Stress Urinary Incontinence (SUI) or abdominal repair.

FDA regulation of pelvic mesh

The first mesh device for POP was approved by the FDA in 2002 . In 2008 the FDA issued a Public Health Notification of what it called “rare” complications — after receiving 1,000 reports of complications from device manufacturers. In July of 2011 the FDA issued a Safety Communication to warn doctors and patients that complications from pelvic mesh were not rare; instead, their own analysis showed that a) 10% of patients who underwent surgery with pelvic mesh suffered mesh erosion within 12 months of surgery and b) mesh used in POP repair does not “conclusively improve clinical outcomes over traditional non-mesh repair.” An advisory panel on pelvic mesh appointed in July 2011 recommended the FDA collect more data; in 2012 the agency ordered manufacturers to conduct post-market surveillance studies

History of transvaginal mesh use

Surgical mesh has been used in surgeries since the 1950s. Gynecologists began using pelvic mesh transvaginally for POP in 1992. The first mesh device sold to treat POP was approved by the FDA in 2002 as a Class II moderate-risk device using the 510(k) process. The manufacturer represented to the FDA that the device was substantially equivalent, just as safe and effective, as a device already on the market. The new FDA orders are a recognition that that claim of substantial equivalence was wrong. Thousands of complaints from women who suffered adverse effects from mesh have been reported to the FDA, including pain, bleeding, mesh contraction, mesh erosion, infection, urinary problems, severe pelvic pain, vaginal tightening or shortening, additional surgeries, painful sexual intercourse, inability to engage in sexual intercourse, or organ perforation. These significant risks must be addressed by manufacturers in their applications for approval.

How is mesh used to treat POP?

Pelvic organ prolapse (POP) is a common medical condition in older women, especially in women who have had children. The internal structure that supports the bladder, uterus, bowel and other pelvic organs becomes so weak, stretched or torn that those organs can drop from their normal position and prolapse (bulge) into the vagina. POP isn’t life threatening, but it causes a host of problems that may include pelvic pressure or low back pain, painful sexual intercourse, constipation, and urine leakage or a chronic urge to urinate. The more common method of implanting mesh is through the vagina as it is less invasive than implantation through the abdomen. The most common side effects of using mesh transvaginally include “severe pelvic pain, pain during intercourse, infection, bleeding, organ perforation and urinary problems from mesh eroding into surrounding tissues.”

How many women will need POP?

The numbers of women affected by POP are staggering. 200,000 women undergo pelvic organ prolapse surgery every year. It is the most common inpatient procedure performed on women over the age of 70. In addition, at least 135,000 personal injury lawsuits are pending against the manufacturers of surgical mesh. The personal injury lawsuit number includes pelvic mesh used in Stress Urinary Incontinence (SUI) and other abdominal surgeries; those products are not covered by these new FDA orders, which apply only to mesh devices to treat POP.

What can you do if you have defective pelvic mesh?

Women who experience any of the symptoms we’ve discussed in this post should consult their doctor. If you have suffered complications from a transvaginal mesh implant, call the transvaginal mesh lawyers at Thornton Law Firm for a free, no-obligation consultation. You can tell us your story online or call Attorney Marilyn McGoldrick for a completely confidential evaluation of your legal rights. Time limits for filing claims are short, so contact an attorney as soon as possible.

Contact Us