Skip to main content

Minnesota Couple Sue AMS Over Vaginal Mesh Complications

By January 4, 2013July 18th, 2019Uncategorized

Minnesota Couple Sue AMS Over Vaginal Mesh Complications

A Minnesota couple filed a vaginal mesh lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the District of Minnesota on October 25, 2012. The purpose of the lawsuit is to gain compensation for the injuries the wife suffered after having a vaginal mesh device implanted. The husband is suing for loss of consortium.

The defendants in the case, American Medical Systems, make vaginal mesh devices as a treatment for stress urinary incontinence and pelvic organ prolapse. These conditions are caused after pelvic muscles become too weak to support a woman’s reproductive organs. The conditions usually occur after childbirth or menopause. Numerous manufacturers of vaginal mesh products have been sued after the devices proved to be dangerous. The device can cause infection and erosion, which can lead to bleeding, vaginal scarring and painful intercourse. Often the erosion can require the patients to have the device surgically removed.

The plaintiff in this lawsuit received the vaginal mesh implant on the 4th of January, 2008. Soon after the implant, she began experiencing “pelvic pain, infection, urinary problems and other injuries.” The Minnesota lawsuit is just one in a slew of other suits that have been filed over vaginal mesh complications. So many lawsuits have been filed, in fact, that MDLs have been erected in various states to accommodate them all. Some of those MDLs are being presided over by Judge Joseph R. Goodwin, who is the judge in the many suits that have been filed in West Virginia. Those lawsuits name various defendants, including C.R. Bard, Boston Scientific, AMS, and Johnson and Johnson’s Ethicon. A December status conference has stated that the first trial to reach a courtroom should begin in December 2013.

Nearly all of the lawsuits filed over vaginal mesh device complications claim that the manufacturers purposely hid the dangers linked to their devices from the public and healthcare professionals alike. They also accuse the companies of marketing the devices as safe, while they either knew or should have known about the dangerous complications.

Leave a Reply