Hernia Mesh lawsuit lawyers

Top product liability lawyers across the United States are filing hernia mesh lawsuits. These lawsuits have been filed on behalf of aggrieved victims suffering from injuries  and complications caused by hernia mesh medical devices.  Attorneys for aggrieved individuals have filed individual lawsuits alleging that certain brands of hernia mesh are defective. We started this hernia mesh liability information center to address a real lack of reliable information on the internet about hernia mesh particularly Ethicon Physiomesh™. Victim’s across the United States and Canada are seeking good, current and real information concerning hernia mesh claims.

List of hernia mesh medical devices we are reviewing on behalf of hernia mesh victims including Ethicon Physiomesh™ individual lawsuits. Hernia mesh lawyers

Call attorney, David Slepkow 401-439-8372 (24/ 7) Composix Kugel Hernia Mesh lawyers fighting for Justice. Defective Medical device. Class action.

Attorneys fighting for justice and compensation for victims of defective mesh and mesh recalls.

Control your own Ethicon PHYSIOMESH™ individual lawsuit with a hernia mesh attorney in the US rather than being marginalized in a Canadian Class Action.

Flexible, sheet-like mesh devices are a common surgical remedy for weakened or damaged soft tissue, including hernias. First considered as an alternative to primary suturing in hernia patients in the 1950s, mesh devices now account for roughly 90 percent of hernia repair procedures, the Food and Drug Administration reports.

This is part 1 of a 5 part series authored by United States Supreme Court Bar attorney David Slepkow concerning Physiomesh™ This series of articles pertains to whether Ethicon’s self-described “removal” of Physiomesh™ was in fact a “recall” and does it make any difference as far as injured victims are concerned? Rhode Island personal injury  attorney, David Slepkow  is available for a free consultation 24/7  at 401-439-8372. He  is now reviewing  certain hernia mesh claims on behalf of seriously injured victims.  David Slepkow is also licensed to practice law in Massachusetts. He is proud to be admitted as a member of the United States Supreme Court Bar.

Suffered complications as a result of defective hernia mesh? CALL for a free hernia mesh lawsuit consultation | Individual lawsuits in federal Court

This hernia mesh post about Atrium C-QUR™ mesh was written to provide hernia mesh victims information about hernia mesh litigation and lawsuits. If you have further questions about Atrium C-Qur hernia mesh, please contact a hernia mesh attorney at the number on this site.

Hernias are painful and require treatment to prevent further medical harm. One of the options available to doctors in the surgical treatment of hernias is the use of mesh patches. Composix® Kugel® mesh patches are manufactured by Davol, a subsidiary of parent company C.R.Bard. It is used primarily for hernia surgery, particularly for laparoscopic ventral hernia repair. The product is inserted into place through a small incision in the abdomen and is meant to remain in place as a permanent repair.

Suffering complications and symptoms as a result of Perfix Plug Hernia Mesh? Seek Justice and Compensation with an individual lawsuit.

PERFIX PLUG HERNIA MESH LAWSUIT

This mesh has become infamous for severe complications including: “mesh erosion, extrusion/protrusion, chronic pain, mesh contraction, infection, abscesses, fistulae, inflammation, scar tissue, organ perforation, dyspareunia, bleeding, neuropathy, and other acute and chronic nerve damage and pain, pelvic pain, prolapse of organs, and in most cases forcing the need for intensive medical treatment, including but not limited to operations to locate and remove mesh, operations to attempt to repair pelvic organs, tissue and nerve damage, the use of pain control and other medications, injections into various areas of the pelvis and spine.” PLAINTIFF’S ORIGINAL COMPLAINT & JURY DEMAND

BARD PERFIX LIGHT PLUG RECALL

Another Perfix plug, the Bard PerFix Light Plug was recalled in an FDA Class 2 device recall “The Bard PerFix Light Plug is indicated for reinforcement if soft tissue, where weakness exists, in procedures involving soft tissue repair, such as groin hernia defects” Class 2 Device Recall Bard PerFix Light Plug

PERFIX PLUG LAWSUIT

Many victims are wondering if there will be a global Perflix Plug lawsuit settlement 2017 or if any Perflix Plug lawsuits will be settled in 2018. Some aggrieved surgical mesh victims are trying to determine if the is an average settlement amount for hernia mesh lawsuits. There are no clear answer to these questions. Top hernia mesh attorneys are litigating these causes of action against Bard/ Davol seeking justice and compensation for victims.

MATTHEW OCHOA RECENTLY FILED A LAWSUIT COMPLAINT AGAINST DEFENDANTS C.R. BARD, INC. AND BARD DAVOL, INC. THIS LAWSUIT ALLEGES IN PERTINENT PART THAT:

“the Bard Defendants manufactured, promoted, distributed and sold for profit a product entitled BARD Perfix Plug Large-6/CTN Catalogue Number 0112970 GTIN 1080174106874 (“Bard Perfix Mesh”). Defendant promoted, distributed, and sold the Bard Perfix Mesh, as a product to repair hernia surgeries in the population. Defendant BARD describes the product as follows, “The Bard PerFix Plug is ideal for use in a tension-free preperitoneal repair technique. Since its introduction in 1993, it has been used in more than four million implants worldwide and has kept pace with new surgical techniques.” PLAINTIFF’S ORIGINAL COMPLAINT & JURY DEMAND, Paragraph #26, UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS HOUSTON DIVISION, MATTHEW OCHOA, Plaintiff,V. C.R. BARD, INC., BARD DAVOL, INC., JOHNSON & JOHNSON, ETHICON, INC., ETHICON US, LLC, AND ETHICON ENDO-SURGERY, INC., Defendants.

“At all times relevant hereto, the Defendant knew of the defective nature of its product and its labeling as herein set forth, yet continued to design, manufacture, market, distribute and sell its product to maximize sales and profits at the expense of the general public’s health and safety in conscious disregard for the foreseeable harm caused by this product. Defendant’s conduct exhibited such an entire want of care as to establish that its actions were a result of fraud, ill will, recklessness, gross negligence or willful and intentional disregard to the Plaintiff’s individual rights, health and well-being and hence punitive damages are appropriate.” Id.

WHAT ARE THE ALLEGED DEFECTS TO THE PERFIX PLUG ALLEGED IN THE OCHOA LAWSUIT:

“a. The material is not inert and therefore reacts to human tissues and/or other naturally
occurring human bodily contents adversely affecting patient health.
b. The mesh material harbors infections that adversely affect human tissues and
patient health.
c. The mesh products migrate from the location of their implantation, adversely
affecting tissues and patient health.
d. If polypropylene, the mesh material abrades tissues adversely affecting patient
health.
e. The pelvic mesh products regularly fail to perform the purpose of their implantation
such that the patient requires removal of the device and repeated treatment and
surgery.
f. Due to their various defects, the pelvic mesh products regularly cause significant
injury to patients such that the mesh products must be removed, resulting in
additional surgery.
g. The mesh products become embedded in human tissue over time such that if it
needs to be removed due to its various defects, the removal causes damage to the
organs and tissues, adversely affecting patient health.
h. The mesh products are defective in shape, composition, weight, physical, chemical
and mechanical properties and are inappropriately engineered.
i. The mesh products erode into other pelvic organs, tissue, muscle, nerves, and bone
adversely affecting tissues and patient health.
j. The Defendants designed and defected an unreasonable dangerous hernia mesh
product.
k. Failed to adequately research the mesh.
l. The Defendants knew or should have known about the potential risk of infections,
allergic reactions, bowel damage and other internal injuries but withheld his
information from patients and doctors.
m. Defendants failed to properly investigate reports of problems after the hernia mesh
was introduced.
n. Defendants failed to warn about the risk of injury.
o. Defendants failed to promptly issue a recall after the problems were discovered.” Id.

Many lawsuits are now pending against Johnson and Johnson and its subsidiary Ethicon as a result of the allegedly defective PROCEED Ventral Patch. Some surgical mesh attorneys and hernia mesh victims assert that the PROCEED hernia mesh is defective and that they were not properly warned of the dangers of this medical device. Will there be a Proceed Hernia Repair Surgical Mesh by Ethicon settlement in 2018? Many victims are searching the world wide web for hernia mesh settlements information. Despite, numerous recalls and lawsuits, Ethicon Inc. is still to this day marketing Proceed hernia mesh.