Transvaginal Mesh Lawyer Interviews

Chicago, ILOn the advice of her doctor, Barbara Kaiser had Prolift pelvic mesh implanted in 2009 to treat her pelvic organ prolapse. She then began to suffer from low pelvic pain. It was only years later that she learned that this was likely a transvaginal mesh complication. Her doctor never told her about this and he, himself, claims to have not been aware of all of the risks, including the danger of severe and irreversible injury to his patients.

Houston, TX: Although Jordan will receive compensation from Boston Scientific for transvaginal mesh injuries, she says the settlement cannot cover the collateral damage suffered not only by her injuries but also by her family.

Dallas, TX: The US Federal Drug Administration (FDA) first raised serious questions about the safety and effectiveness of transvaginal mesh implants in 2008. Much has happened since then -- studies and recalls and thousands of lawsuits. But women still suffer serious and painful pelvic mesh complications, which may take years to manifest. According to attorney and physician Dr. Shezad Malik, the most important thing women should know is that “it’s not too late to file a lawsuit or get involved in a settlement program because this is a device that will continue to cause problems for the rest of this decade.”


The FDA first approved surgical mesh to treat stress urinary incontinence (SUI) in 1996, later expanding the approval to include pelvic organ prolapse (POP). The approval was accomplished through the FDA’s 510(k) system, which provides an expedited process for products that are similar to others already on the market. The similar devices in question were mesh products used for hernia and other abdominal repairs. The intervening years tell a tale of unraveling confidence in both the safety of transvaginal mesh and the soundness of FDA’s approval process.


By 2011, the FDA warned that serious complications associated with surgical mesh for transvaginal repair of POP were not rare and that it could expose patients to greater risk without substantial medical advantage. Manufacturers like Boston Scientific, Mentor Corporation and C.R. Bard pulled products from the market.


A 2017 study published in the journal The BMJ directed blame squarely at the FDA, concluding that, “Transvaginal mesh products for pelvic organ prolapse have been approved on the basis of weak evidence over the last 20 years.” More bluntly, as Dr. Malik put it, “there is no evidence that this stuff is any good.”


Meanwhile, however, as Dr. Malik notes, women continue to suffer from transvaginal mesh side effects, including ongoing pain, chronic infections, bladder infections, difficulty having sex, trouble passing urine, incontinence, and erosion into the vagina or the pelvic area, sometimes leading to organ rupture.


After years of litigation, some high profile transvaginal mesh lawsuits have resulted in large awards for injured plaintiffs. Others, consolidated as multidistrict litigation, appear to be moving toward settlement. But for women who suffer from transvaginal mesh side effects, the pain is still not over. The good news is that it may not be too late to bring legal action against manufacturers who appear to have rushed a faulty product to market without sufficient testing.


Dr. Malik represents individuals in personal injury cases through his law office, The Dr. Shezad Malik Law Firm, in Dallas, TX.

Toronto, ON: Five years ago, attorney Paul Miller told LawyersandSettlements that he had 18 transvaginal mesh cases across Canada. In those five years, more Canadian women - and their doctors - realized the mesh is the cause of their pain and internal damage. And he is still hearing from women with TVM complications.

Dallas, TX The number of transvaginal mesh lawsuits consolidated in West Virginia sits at around 60,000, but that number could still grow dramatically. Meanwhile, the past year was a big one for transvaginal mesh litigation, with one company announcing a large settlement and other companies facing verdicts against them. According to Dr. Shezad Malik, founder of the Dr. Shezad Malik Law Firm, 2015 could see both an increase in the number of lawsuits filed and more positive results for transvaginal mesh plaintiffs.

Dallas, TX At first glance, American Medical Systems’ $830 million agreement to settle about 22,000 AMS transvaginal mesh complaints seems generous. But that only averages about $40,000 per case, before legal fees. The lawsuits allege the AMS polypropylene mesh is defective and that doctors and consumers were not properly warned about transvaginal mesh complications.

Dallas, TX The first of many scheduled court cases alleging that transvaginal mesh devices caused harm to thousands of American women was being closely watched. And a West Virginia judge’s decision in February to dismiss Carolyn Lewis’s personal injury case against Johnson and Johnson (J&J) caused some surprise, but will not deter other cases from going forward.

Dallas, TX Doctor Shezad Malik, an attorney specializing in transvaginal mesh product liability cases and a practicing cardiologist, says that the month-long jury trial against Johnson & Johnson’s Ethicon subsidiary and its Prolift vaginal mesh implant came out with a $3.35 million verdict in favor of the plaintiff, and today Johnson & Johnson (J&J) must pay $7.76 million in punitive damages to the woman for injuries she blamed on the company’s vaginal-mesh device, a New Jersey jury ruled.

Newport Beach, CA The first Avaulta transvaginal mesh bellwether trial against C.R. Bard has been set for February 5, 2013 by Chief Judge Joseph R. Goodwin in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of West Virginia, where Bard cases have been consolidated. “The Avaulta transvaginal mesh claims are consolidated for discovery purposes,” explains attorney Brian Chase, of Bisnar & Chase Personal Injury Attorneys, LLP. “Ultimately each case is individual and if there isn’t a global Multi District Litigation [MDL] resolution, then the cases will get transferred back to their original trial courts and be tried as individual cases.”

Minneapolis, MN "Because there are a number of transvaginal mesh manufacturers that have made many TVM products and subsequently caused injuries to thousands of women, the Judicial Panel on Multi-District Litigation decided it makes the most sense to have federal TVM lawsuits, including AMS claims, consolidated together in multi-district litigation, or MDL," says attorney Stacy Hauer, who is co-lead council in the Minnesota State Court American Medical Systems (AMS) litigation. This decision is in part because many women were implanted with mesh products made by multiple manufacturers.