Close Menu

Bard Mesh Lawsuits

Update Spring 2023 – We are accepting Bard sling and pelvic mesh removal or revision cases.

Bard sling and mesh lawsuits are filed for injured women. Since 2011, when the pelvic mesh litigation began, we have successfully prosecuted cases for women implanted with transvaginal mesh products. Women implanted with sling and pelvic mesh products claim that the vaginal mesh devices are defective and cause serious health issues, including:

  • Vaginal mesh erosion: polypropylene mesh can break down, leaving the mesh exposed to protrude through the vagina.
  • Erosion of mesh into other organs: polypropylene mesh may erode into the urethra, bladder or rectum.
  • Vaginal mesh contraction: polypropylene mesh shortens and tightens to cause vaginal tissue pain.
  • Pain during sexual intercourse
  • Urinary problems
  • Infections
  • Bleeding
  • Reoccurrence
  • Emotional issues
  • Chronic pain
  • Fistulas
  • Organ perforation
  • Incontinence
  • Pelvic nerve damage

Pelvic mesh and bladder sling problems have been reported by major medical clinics for decades. Major medical clinics and university affiliated medical institutions, including the Cleveland Clinic, have published articles and treatise for your review on Mesh Problems and Complications

Bard Mesh Products

Bard pelvic mesh products are no longer being sold in the medical device market. We are reviewing cases involving Bard pelvic mesh products that required surgical revision or removal including:

  • Align Transobturator Urethral Sling
  • Avaulta Anterior BioSynthetic Support
  • Avaulta Posterior BioSynthetic Support
  • Avaulta Plus Anterior BioSynthetic Support
  • Avaulta Plus Posterior BioSynthetic Support
  • Avaulta Solo Anterior Synthetic Support
  • Avaulta Solo Posterior Synthetic Support
  • InnerLace BioUrethral Support System
  • Pelvicol Acellular Collagen Matrix
  • PelviLace BioUrethral Support System
  • PelviLace TO Trans-obturator BioUrethral Support
  • PelviSoft Acellular Collagen BioMesh
  • Pelvitex Polypropylene Mesh
  • Uretex SUP Pubourethral Sling
  • Uretex TO Transobturator Urethral Sling
  • Uretex TO2 Transobturator Urethral Sling
  • Uretex TO3 Transobturator Urethral Sling

Contact us now for a free medical legal consultation about your Bard pelvic mesh product at 1-800-814-4540. There are deadlines in each state and hospitals destroy medical record evidence after a certain time period, so contact us now.

Pelvic Mesh Verdicts

Bard verdicts, settlements, manufacturers, products, and jurisdictions are in bold as follows: 

  1. 7/12: $5.5 million – Christine Scott – C.R. Bard (Avaulta Plus) – CA
  2. 2/13: $11.11 million – Linda Gross – Ethicon/JJ (Prolift) – NJ
  3. 8/13: $2 million – Donna Cisson – C.R. Bard (Avaulta) – MDL WV
  4. 2/14: $0 – Carolyn Lewis – Ethicon/JJ (TVT-O) – MDL WV
  5. 4/14: $1.2 million – Linda Batiste – Ethicon/JJ (TVT-O) – TX
  6. 7/14: $0 – Diane Albright – Boston Scientific (Pinnacle) – MA
  7. 8/14: $0 – Maria Cardenas – Boston Scientific (Obtryx) – MA
  8. 9/14: $3.27 million – Jo Huskey – Ethicon/JJ (TVT-O) – MDL WV
  9. 9/14: $73.465 million – Martha Salazar – Boston Scientific (Obtryx) – TX
  10. 11/14: $6.7+ million – Amal Eghnayem – Boston Scientific (Pinnacle) – MDL FL
  11. 11/14: $6.7+ million – Margarita Dotres – Boston Scientific (Pinnacle) – MDL FL
  12. 11/14: $6.7+ million – Mania Nunez – Boston Scientific (Pinnacle) – MDL FL
  13. 11/14: $6.5+ million – Juana Betancourt – Boston Scientific (Pinnacle) – MDL FL
  14. 11/14: $5.25 million – Jeanie Blankenship – Boston Scientific (Obtryx) – MDL WV
  15. 11/14: $4.75 million – Chris Wilson – Boston Scientific (Obtryx) – MDL
  16. 11/14: $4.25 million – Carol Campbell – Boston Scientific (Obtryx) – MDL
  17. 11/14: $4.25 million – Jacquelyn Tyree – Boston Scientific (Obtryx) – MDL
  18. 2/15: Settled – Wise v. Bard –  MDL
  19. 3/15: Settled – Bellew v. Ethicon (Prolift) – MDL;
  20. 5/15: Settled – Sanchez v. Boston Scientific (Pinnacle) – CA
  21. 3/15: $5.7 million – Coleen Perry – Ethicon/JJ Abbrevo sling – CA
  22. 5/15: $100 million – Deborah Barda v. Boston Scientific (Pinnacle/Advantage Fit) – DL
  23. 10/15: $0 – Carol Cavness v. Ethicon/JJ (Prosima) – TX
  24. 10/15: $0 – Martha Carlson v. Boston Scientific (Uphold) – NC
  25. 12/15: $12.5 million – Hammons v. Ethicon/JJ (Prolift) – PA
  26. 2/16: $0 – Sherrer v. Boston Scientific (Solyx) and Bard (Align) – MO
  27. 2/16: $13.5 – Carlino v. Ethicon/JJ (TVT) – PA
  28. 4/17: $20.0 million – Engleman v. Ethicon/JJ (TVT Secur) – PA
  29. 5/17: $2.16 million – Betz v. Ethicon/JJ (Prolift) – PA
  30. 9/17: $57.1 million – Ebaugh v. Ethicon/JJ (TVT-Secur) – PA
  31. 3/18: $35 million – Kaiser v. Ethicon/JJ (Prolift) – IN
  32. 4/18: $68 million – McGinnis v. Bard (Align and Avaulta) – NJ
  33. 1/19: $41 million – Emmett v. Ethicon/JJ (Gynemesh/Prolift/TVT-O) – PA
  34. 4/19: $120 million – McFarland v. Ethicon/JJ (TVT-O) – PA
  35. 5/19: $80+ million – Mesigian v. Ethicon/JJ (Prolift) – PA
  36. 6/19: $500,000 – Dunfee v. Ethicon/JJ (Prolift) – PA

FDA Warnings

July 2011: An FDA Safety Communication identified concerns and issued new recommendations on surgical mesh for transvaginal repair of Pelvic Organ Prolapse (POP).

September 2011: The FDA convened a public meeting of the Obstetrics and Gynecology Devices Panel to discuss the benefits and risks of the mesh use. The FDA issued 131 orders to conduct post market surveillance studies (PMAs) to 34 manufacturers of surgical mesh for transvaginal repair of POP. Most manufacturers elected to stop marketing surgical mesh.

January 2016: The FDA completed its reclassification of surgical mesh for transvaginal repair of POP into the highest risk class of devices (class III), which requires premarket approval (PMA) applications, the agency’s most stringent device review pathway, in order to stay on the market.

July 5, 2018:  Manufacturers that did not file PMAs for their POP mesh by this deadline had to withdraw their products from the market.

February 12, 2019: The FDA convened an advisory committee meeting to share the available evidence and seek expert opinions on how to evaluate the risks and benefits of these devices. Boston Scientific filed two PMAs for its devices, the Uphold LITE Vaginal Support System and the Xenform Soft Tissue Repair System. Coloplast filed a PMA for its device, Restorelle DirectFix Anterior.

In February 2019, the FDA convened a panel of experts and agreed with their recommendations, but the FDA decided not to approve Pelvic Organ Prolapse devices. Even though these products can no longer be used in patients, Boston Scientific and Coloplast are required to continue follow up of the subjects already enrolled in their 522 studies.

Since 2019, some of the Bard mesh products had been removed from the market and are no longer being implanted in women. However, thousands of women have the Bard products – Align,  Avaulta PlusTM, BioSynthetic Support System, Avaulta Solo Synthetic Support System, Faslata® Allograft, Pelvicol® Tissue, PelviSoft® Biomesh, Pelvitex Polypropylene Mesh implanted and are still indwelling. Many ladies may experience complications and their surgeons advise that they have the implant surgically removed or revised.

Call us for your free medical legal consultation at 1-800-814-4540 or fill out the Contact Us Form and tell us about your claim.

Share This Page:
Facebook Twitter LinkedIn