Jury Awards $2 Million in Vaginal Mesh Case

surgery%20galley.jpgA victory was recently reported in a lawsuit against C.R. Bard, the manufacturer of the Avaulta line of vaginal mesh devices. The jury ordered the company to pay a Georgia woman $2 million for her serious injuries.

The individual lawsuit was filed on behalf of a plaintiff whose vaginal mesh injuries reportedly included perforation to her internal organs, vaginal scarring, pelvic pain and pain during intercourse. According to court documents, the plaintiff suffered an incredible lowering in enjoyment of her life, and the vaginal mesh eventually had to be removed.

After a reported twelve hours of deliberation, the jury reached a verdict for $250,000 in compensatory damages and $1.75 million in punitive damages. This was the first verdict in the first case to go to trial for similar lawsuits in the area.

The plaintiff reportedly had the mesh inserted in order to help treat her pelvic organ prolapse and stress urinary incontinence. (Referred to colloquially as POP and SUI). After developing some serious complications, which allegedly included internal bleeding and bladder spasms, the plaintiff underwent multiple surgeries to extract the defective mesh sling. This presumably caused her extensive pain and suffering, and likely accompanying high medical bills, aside from the potential impact on the rest of her life.

Vaginal mesh cases are notoriously hard on the individuals involved in them, because the mesh can become ingratiated in the vaginal wall, making removal incredibly difficult, if not impossible. This means the additional pain and healing that accompanies surgeries, and also the incredibly prolonged process of recovery, and potential derailment from normal life activities.

Pharmaceutical companies, consumer goods and medical device manufacturers are potentially liable for the damage that their products cause. Under a negligence cause of action, the plaintiff (person bringing the lawsuit) asserts that the company that manufactured the product failed to do what a reasonably prudent manufacturer would have done. The manufacturer must be reasonable in designing, manufacturing, and inspecting its products prior to use by the consumer. Manufacturers must also warn the consumer of any dangerous conditions associated with the product. The failure to warn may serve as justification for a claim by a plaintiff injured by a dangerous product.

If you or a loved one has sustained a personal injury in Maryland or Washington D.C. due to someone else’s negligence or a defective product, consult the experienced personal injury attorneys at Lebowitz & Mzhen, LLC. Our law firm has extensive experience in helping victims recover the damages they are entitled to. We have successfully represented individuals hurt in many different kinds of accidents, including medical malpractice, car accidents, product’s liability, birth injuries, and slip and fall accidents. Contact us today in order to schedule your free initial consultation. You can reach us through our website, or by calling 1-800-654-1949.

More Blog Posts:

Family Sues Rodeo After Golf Cart Puts Woman into Coma, Maryland Accident Law Blog, published August 9, 2013
Maryland High Court Refuses to Hold Bar Liable for Drunken Patron Actions, Maryland Accident Law Blog, published July 26, 2013

Contact Information