A new lawsuit claims that a woman was forced to use a device that “contained hidden metal inside it,” which caused her to have serious vaginal bleeding, infections, tissue damage, etc. For these reasons, the woman is seeking monetary damages for her injuries. The woman is represented by Philadelphia Solicitor’s Office. We’ll discuss further below. Refreshments are welcome.
Update: On 3/5/15, a jury awarded a $41 million settlement against J&J Pharmaceuticals, LLC, which is one of the manufacturers of protegen and vaginal mesh devices.
The Philadelphia jurors found that Ethicon, Prolift and TVT in mesh products were defective, and that the manufacturer was liable in the negligence of manufacturing the said devices. This means that there may be additional lawsuits. Keep your refreshments handy, because more lawsuits regarding these very same (and probably other) protegen/mesalamine products have been filed.
A recent lawsuit claims that a woman suffered serious complications after using a Prolift device to improve her sexual desire.
According to this lawsuit, Prolift failed to warn its customers about complications like internal bleeding, which can occur as a result of improper sterilization, as well as peripheral neurogenic symptoms, which can include tingling, burning, numbness, etc. In fact, the lawsuit further claims that the manufacturer of Prolift, the well-known and well-respected medical device company marketed the Prolift without providing adequate warnings about the potential complications associated with using the product. For example, the lawsuit says that a customer purchased Prolift with the understanding that it would restore her natural vagina to its “proper” shape. When the product failed to do so, the customer “suffered from numerous complications, some of which were not treatable by medical treatment.”
According to court documents, one of the complications the plaintiff suffered was “an extensive rash that spread across the lower half of her body, resulting in her having an inflamed vagina that could not be treated with any type of topical or oral medication.”
The woman sought to have her case transferred to a Florida-based law firm, but that plan was later dropped. The law firm’s handling of the case “was considered deficient,” and it has yet to file its answer for the case. However, the case was ultimately transferred to another law firm in San Diego.
Another case involves the manufacturer of an anal cleanser named Avaulta, Inc. In a legal motion, the plaintiff’s attorney contends that Avaulta’s mesh lawsuits were “discredited by the FDA due to their obvious lack of quality.”
According to court documents, the FDA noted that the mesh in Avaulta “contains only one ingredient – calcium carbonate, which has been proven to cause allergic reactions in over half of the people who used it without incident.” The company’s attorneys are challenging this factual determination by filing a motion to dismiss.
There is no evidence that any of the cited products have caused injuries.
However, the Avaulta attorneys state that they are engaged in “no disreputable conduct within the course and scope of their professional and lawfully inherent profession.” In response to these claims, the San Diego-based law firm contends, “A careful review of the relevant facts demonstrates that there are no such instances.” Both parties are scheduled to appear in federal court on August 6 for a status conference on the status of the lawsuit.
