Vaginal Mesh Lawsuit Claims Company Wasn’t Honest
Elise Kramer | March 13th, 2012 | Posted in Vaginal Mesh Helpline
Vaginal mesh Helpline brings new news on vaginal mesh lawsuits. Vaginal mesh lawyers Filing lawsuits Nationwide. New Vaginal mesh lawsuit against American Medical Systems.
A new vaginal mesh lawsuit filed on the 24th of February, 2012, accuses device manufacturer American Medical Systems, Inc. of not being entirely honest about their vaginal mesh products by underreporting the side effects associated with such devices. The lawsuit was filed in the United States District Court for the Central District of California by plaintiff Robin McAlpine and her vaginal mesh lawyer. The plaintiff says that the company aggressively marketed the Monarc Subfascial Hammoc vaginal mesh system to patients, making them believe that it was the best option to treat urinary incontinence and pelvic organ prolapse when, she claims, it is a defective device.
Vaginal mesh plaintiffs detail side effects
Pelvic organ prolapse is a condition that manifests most commonly in women who have had children or are going through menopause. The pelvic floor is weakened, causing pelvic organs to shift or drop. Transvaginal mesh systems can help support these organs if they are implanted in a patient who is suffering from pelvic organ prolapse.
According to her lawsuit, plaintiff McAlpine received the Monarc Subfascial Hammock vaginal mesh device manufactured by American Medical Systems on the 5th of October, 2005. She began to experience vaginal mesh complications immediately afterwards. These complications included erosion, infection, fistula, inflammation, scar tissue, and organ perforation. She had the mesh removed in October of 2010, after which she had revision surgery and vaginal reconstruction. In addition, she claims to continue to have pain related to the vaginal mesh complications she suffered.
She claims that American Medical Systems exaggerated the effectiveness of the transvaginal mesh system so that patients would choose their product over other modes of treatment for urinary incontinence or pelvic organ prolapse. She also claims that the design of the device was defective and that AMS withheld information from consumers regarding the safety of the vaginal mesh device.
High vaginal mesh failure rate outlined
Plaintiff McAlpine’s lawsuit outlines the high rate of vaginal mesh failure that has been noted in more than 15 percent of women who have had vaginal mesh implants. She claims that the company not only failed to warn the public of the possibility of failure but also conducted inadequate clinical tests. She is asking for both compensatory and punitive damages.