Transvaginal Mesh Lawsuits

More than 108,000 lawsuits have alleged that transvaginal mesh causes complications including pain, bleeding, infection, organ perforation and autoimmune problems. One of the largest transvaginal mesh settlements to date was $830 million for 20,000 cases. As of November 2019, more than 2,263 lawsuits are still pending.

Transvaginal Mesh Implant and pelvic bone
Transvaginal Lawsuit Facts
  1. Number of Lawsuits 108,008 (2,263 pending)
  2. Plaintiff Injuries Erosion, organ perforation, severe pain, dyspareunia
  3. Defendants Ethicon, C.R. Bard, American Medical Systems, Boston Scientific, Coloplast, Cook Medical, Neomedic
  4. Class Action Status One class action in California

Thousands of women who received transvaginal mesh implants to treat conditions called pelvic organ prolapse and stress urinary incontinence say that they suffered severe pain, organ damage and other complications because of the devices.

Since 2012, women who have sued companies over transvaginal mesh have won at least 20 verdicts in state and federal courts totaling around $300 million. By March 2017, multiple companies had settled thousands of claims for millions.

Some patients have won multimillion-dollar verdicts against manufacturers. One jury, for example, awarded $68 million to Mary McGinnis and her husband in 2018. Another jury awarded Patricia Mesigian $80 million in 2019.

A total of 108,008 lawsuits have been filed in the MDLs. But waves of settlements have whittled down the number of lawsuits that are still pending.

As of November 2019, four implant makers faced 2,263 lawsuits in multidistrict litigation, or MDL, in West Virginia. Johnson & Johnson’s Ethicon unit faced 1,202 lawsuits — the most of any manufacturer — followed by Boston Scientific at 965, American Medical at 80 and Bard at 16.

In 2019, the FDA stopped all sales of mesh for pelvic organ prolapse, also called POP, because manufacturers could not prove the benefits outweighed the risks.

At one time there were over 100,000 lawsuits pending in federal court before U.S. District Judge Joseph R. Goodwin in West Virginia. Many have settled, gone to trial or have been dismissed.

In February 2012, the federal courts agreed to consolidate cases against three companies into MDLs in the Southern District of West Virginia, where one transvaginal mesh MDL already existed.

Cases as of November 2019:
COMPANY PENDING ACTIONS TOTAL ACTIONS
C.R. Bard 16 15,868
American Medical Systems 80 21,367
Boston Scientific 965 26,617
Ethicon 1,202 40,761

ObTape Multidistrict Litigation

Before the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation formed the main mesh MDL in West Virginia, the first transvaginal mesh lawsuits involved a device called ObTape manufactured by Mentor. In 2008, the judicial panel combined several of these cases into a multidistrict litigation.

A total of 857 lawsuits were included in this one MDL between 2008 and 2017.

In 2016, the judge overseeing the MDL asked the judicial panel to stop adding cases to the ObTape MDL. He said the MDL had received too many lawsuits that did not have enough evidence to stand up in court and cases that had missed the time limit for filing a lawsuit.

The judicial panel has not closed the ObTape MDL. Women seeking compensation for ObTape injuries can also still file claims in state courts.

Injuries Include Erosion, Infection and Pain

Women who received the device — for prolapse or stress urinary incontinence, also called SUI —and filed lawsuits say they suffered from painful injuries.

These women had problems such as sitting, walking, having sex and participating in other activities, according to lawsuits. The complications were so bad that many women had to suffer through multiple revision surgeries to remove the implants.

Holly Ennis describes reasons people file transvaginal mesh lawsuits.
Problems described in lawsuits include:
Erosion
This occurs when implants damage vaginal walls or internal organs.
Infection
Studies show that bacteria can grow on implants and cause infections.
Pain
The device may damage nerves, cut through tissues or shrink, causing scarring and pain — including painful intercourse.
Urinary problems
The devices may block the bladder, making it difficult to urinate.
Recurring prolapse
Even after mesh surgery, the implant can fail and cause recurring prolapse.
Recurring incontinence
Some women experience new or worsened incontinence of the bladder or rectum.

Allegations Against Manufacturers

Women who filed lawsuits claim that manufacturers “had a legal duty to ensure the safety and effectiveness of their pelvic mesh products” but instead provided patients with “false and misleading information” about how safe and effective the products supposedly were. The products were cleared for use based on “weak evidence,” according to a 2017 study in BMJ.

Lawsuits accuse mesh manufacturers of:
  • Intentionally misleading the U.S. Food and Drug Administration, the medical community, patients and the public about the true safety and effectiveness of the products.
  • Failing to properly test devices.
  • Failure to research the risks of the products.
  • Failing to create safe and effective methods to remove the materials.
  • Failing to adequately warn people of potential complications and injuries.

Settlements and Verdicts

So far, manufacturers have paid out billions in settlements and jury verdicts. By February 2019, 32 women had gone to trial in federal or state court, according to the New York Times. Of those women, 24 received jury awards totaling $345 million, and mesh manufacturers have paid close to $8 billion in settlements.

Since 2014, companies have agreed to settlements in thousands of cases in the MDLs including:
JANUARY 2014
Coloplast settled 400 lawsuits
OCTOBER 2014
Bard settled 500 lawsuits
JANUARY 2015
Ethicon (Johnson & Johnson) settled four lawsuits
APRIL 2015
Boston Scientific settled 3,000 claims
DECEMBER 2015
Neomedic settled 112 claims
AUGUST 2017
Remaining 22,000 AMS claims settled
DECEMBER 2017
Boston Scientific settled about 350 claims

Lawsuit Verdicts

J&J, Bard and Boston Scientific each lost multiple bellwether trials, and the MDL court has urged those companies to settle more lawsuits. While J&J agreed to settle 2,000 to 3,000 lawsuits for $120 million in 2016, the company has continued to defend itself in court.

The first major mesh verdict came in the case of Christine Scott in July 2012. A California jury awarded her $5.5 million against C.R. Bard. Since then, several verdicts have been awarded in favor of plaintiffs.

Some companies settled cases before trial for undisclosed amounts.

Dunfee vs. Ethicon
In June 2019, jurors awarded Linda Dunfee $500,000 in her case against Ethicon. This was the ninth time Philadelphia jurors found in favor of plaintiffs against Ethicon, according to Law360. Dunfee received Prolift mesh for POP in 2007. Two years later, the device had eroded through the vaginal wall.
Mesigian v. Ethicon
In May 2019, Patricia Mesigian received a jury award of $80 million in her lawsuits against J&J’s Ethicon. The jury allotted $50 million for punitive damages and $30 million for compensatory damages — the highest compensatory damage award for mesh injury, Bloomberg reported. Mesigian received Ethicon’s Prolift mesh for POP in 2008. She suffered from pain, inflammation, infection and scar tissue. Surgeons were only able to remove part of the mesh.
McFarland v. Ethicon
Susan McFarland won a $120 million verdict against Ethicon in April 2019, the Philadelphia Inquirer reported. McFarland had Ethicon’s TVT-O device implanted for stress urinary incontinence in 2008. McFarland suffered pain and constant infections, and removing the mesh didn’t alleviate symptoms. The Philadelphia jury awarded $100 million for punitive damages — damages awarded to discourage the defendant from especially negligent behavior.
McGinnis v. C.R. Bard
A New Jersey jury awarded Mary and Thomas McGinnis a total of $68 million in April 2018 in her lawsuit against C.R. Bard. Mary McGinnis had been injured after being implanted with an Avaulta Solo and an Align Transobturator. The award to the Raleigh, N.C., couple was comprised of $33 in compensatory damages and $35 million in punitive damages. "I've very grateful," Mary McGinnis said as she left the courtroom with her husband, according to northjersey.com. "This case was fought for all the victims of mesh, whom I hold in my heart."
Blankenship, Campbell, Tyree and Wilson v. Boston Scientific
Jeanie Blankenship, Carol Sue Campbell, Jacquelyn Tyree and Chris Rene Wilson had each been implanted with the Boston Scientific Obtryx product. In 2014, a New Jersey jury held Boston Scientific responsible for the women’s medical bills and suffering. The four women shared $14.5 million for their injuries and another $4 million in punitive damages. That total $18.5 million award was upheld by an appellate court in February 2018.
DuBois-Jean, Dotres, Nunez and Betancourt v. Boston Scientific
Margarette DuBois-Jean, Margarita Dotres, Maria Nunez and Juana Betancourt all claimed the company had been negligent in the Pinnacle mesh’s defective design. In 2014, a Florida jury awarded each of the women more than $6 million in November 2014, but Boston Scientific appealed. In October 2017, the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals upheld the $26.7 million verdict.
Hammons v. Ethicon
Patricia Hammons won a $12.5 million award after she sued J&J for injuries one of its products products caused. Hammons’ Prolift implant failed and she had multiple revision surgeries. The jury awarded Hammons $5.5 million for her injuries and $7 million in punitive damages. A state appeals court upheld the verdict in June 2018.
Engleman v. Ethicon
Peggy Engleman won a $20 million jury verdict after she said Ethicon’s TVT-Secur device caused serious complications and the company did not warn her. The device caused pain, bleeding and infections that required multiple surgeries to fix, her lawsuit said.
Hyrmoc v. Ethicon
Elizabeth Hyrmoc won $4 million for pain and suffering and $10 million for punitive damages against J&J’s Ethicon subsidiary. The New Jersey jury also awarded $1 million for loss of conjugal affection. Hyrmoc received Ethicon’s Prolift and transvaginal tape for incontinence and had several corrective surgeries for pain and other complications.
Ebaugh v. Ethicon
In September 2017, a jury awarded Ella Ebaugh $57.1 million in her case against Ethicon. “It was a very happy day, but I was still sad and depressed,” Ebaugh told CBS 3 Philly. “I’m in excruciating pain when I’m standing, it hurts when I’m sitting.”
Beltz v. Ethicon
Sharon Beltz won $2.4 million against Ethicon in May 2017 after she said the company’s Prolift mesh caused complications. The company appealed and in August 2019, the Supreme Court of Philadelphia upheld her verdict.
Carlino v. Ethicon
Ethicon lost its trial against Sharon Carlino and the jury awarded the woman $13.7 million. Carlino successfully defended J&J’s appeal in April 2019 and the verdict was upheld.
Gross v. Ethicon
Linda Gross had Ethicon’s Prolift implanted in 2006 for POP. Gross said she couldn’t even sit down because of the pain caused by the device. In February 2013, a New Jersey jury awarded her $3.35 million in compensatory damages and $7.76 million in punitive damages.

Class Action

In 2015, an insurance company for a device maker, Caldera Medical Inc., filed a class-action suit against its client over a coverage dispute. Federal Insurance Co. took Caldera to court as the company faced 2,184 claims from women who alleged injuries from the products.

In 2016, the companies set aside a settlement fund of $11.75 million for these claimants. On March 3, 2017, U.S. District Judge Stephen Wilson approved the settlement, which had grown to $12.25 million. “The settlement is made in good faith; and is fair, reasonable, adequate, and consistent with due process,” Wilson wrote in his order.

The case is Federal Insurance Company v. Caldera Medical, Inc. and the case number is 2:15-CV-00393. The deadline to submit a claim was May 2, 2016.

Please seek the advice of a medical professional before making health care decisions.

Michelle Llamas, Senior Content Writer
Written By Michelle Llamas Senior Writer

Michelle Llamas has been writing articles and producing podcasts about drugs, medical devices and the FDA for seven years. She specializes in fluoroquinolone antibiotics and products that affect women’s health such as Essure birth control, transvaginal mesh and talcum powder. Michelle collaborates with experts, including board-certified doctors, patients and advocates, to provide trusted health information to the public. Some of her qualifications include:

  • American Medical Writers Association (AMWA) Engage Committee and Membership Committee member
  • Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) Health Literacy certificates
  • Original works published or cited in The Lancet, British Journal of Clinical Pharmacology and the Journal for Palliative Medicine
Edited By
Kevin Connolly
Kevin Connolly Managing Editor
Legally Reviewed By

33 Cited Research Articles

  1. 11th Circuit Court of Appeals. (2017, October 19). Dubois-Jean, et al v. Boston Scientific Corporation. Retrieved from http://media.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/pub/files/201611818.pdf
  2. Archer, R. (2018, February 6). 4th Circ. Upholds $18.5M Boston Scientific Mesh Verdict. Retrieved from https://www.law360.com/articles/1009797/4th-circ-upholds-18-5m-boston-scientific-mesh-verdict
  3. Bellon, T. (2017, October 19). 11th Circuit Upholds 2014 Boston Scientific Mesh Verdict. Retrieved from https://www.reuters.com/article/products-mesh-boston-scientific/11th-circuit-upholds-2014-boston-scientific-mesh-verdict-idUSL2N1MV046
  4. Bellon, T. (2018, June 20). Pa. court upholds $12.5 mln mesh verdict against J&J over BMS challenge. Retrieved from https://www.reuters.com/article/products-ethicon/pa-court-upholds-12-5-mln-mesh-verdict-against-jj-over-bms-challenge-idUSL1N1TM2CG
  5. Blackston et al. v. Ethicon et al. (2012, April 27). U.S. District Court for the Western District of Missouri Kansas City Division. Complaint and Jury Demand. Case no. 3:16-cv-01251 Retrieved from https://jc6kx1c9izw3wansr3nmip8k-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/wp-content/uploads/2012-04-30-Gynecare-TVT-Sling-Complaint.pdf
  6. Cowen, R. (2018, April 13). Pelvic mesh case: $68M award from Bergen jury. Retrieved from https://www.northjersey.com/story/news/2018/04/13/pelvic-mesh-case-68-million-dollar-award-bergen-jury/512520002/
  7. Crotti, N. (2019, May 22). J&J ordered to pay $80 million in Pennsylvania pelvic mesh case. Retrieved from https://www.massdevice.com/jj-ordered-to-pay-80-million-in-pennsylvania-pelvic-mesh-case/
  8. Densford, F. (2017, March 7). Court Clears Caldera’s $12.3M Transvaginal Mesh Settlement. Retrieved from https://www.massdevice.com/court-clears-calderas-12-3m-transvaginal-mesh-settlement/
  9. Fair, M. (2019, June 18). J&j Hit with $500K Verdict in Latest Philly Mesh Case. Retrieved from https://www.law360.com/articles/1174260/j-j-hit-with-500k-verdict-in-latest-philly-mesh-case
  10. FDA.gov. (2016, January 4). FDA Strengthens Requirements for Surgical Mesh for the Transvaginal Repair of Pelvic Organ Prolapse to Address Safety Risks. Retrieved from https://www.fda.gov/news-events/press-announcements/fda-strengthens-requirements-surgical-mesh-transvaginal-repair-pelvic-organ-prolapse-address-safety
  11. Federal Insurance Company V. Caldera Medical Inc. et al. (2015, January 20). U.S. District Court Central District of California. Complaint in the Nature of Interpleader. Retrieved from https://www.plainsite.org/dockets/2jnha9qr7/california-central-district-court/federal-insurance-company-v-caldera-medical-inc-et-al/
  12. Federal Insurance Company vs. Caldera Medical, Inc., et al. (2017, March 3). Case 2:15cv00393. Judgment and Bar Order. Retrieved from https://www.pacer.gov/
  13. Feeley, J. & Koons, C. (2016, January 27). J&J to Pay $120 Million in Its First Big Mesh Settlement. Retrieved from https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2016-01-27/j-j-said-to-pay-120-million-in-its-first-big-mesh-settlement
  14. Feeley, J. & Voreacos, D. (2013, September 30). Bard, Vaginal-Mesh Makers, Said to Be in Settlement Talks. Retrieved from https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2013-09-30/bard-vaginal-mesh-makers-said-to-be-in-settlement-talks
  15. Godoy, J. (2015, June 5). Cook Group Scores Win in Pelvic Mesh Suit. Retrieved from https://www.law360.com/articles/664504/cook-group-scores-win-in-pelvic-mesh-suit
  16. Goldstein, M. (2019, February 1). As Pelvic Mesh Settlements Near $8 Billion, Women Question Lawyers’ Fees. Retrieved from https://www.nytimes.com/2019/02/01/business/pelvic-mesh-settlements-lawyers.html
  17. Heneghan, C.J. et al. (2017, December 7). Trials of transvaginal mesh devices for pelvic organ prolapse, a systematic database review of the US FDA approval process. Retrieved from https://bmjopen.bmj.com/content/7/12/e017125
  18. Kass, D. (2017, October 19). 11th Circ. Upholds $27M Boston Scientific Pelvic Mesh Loss. Retrieved from https://www.law360.com/trials/articles/976264/11th-circ-upholds-27m-boston-scientific-pelvic-mesh-loss
  19. Lexis Legal News. (2015, December 1). Neomedic Pelvic Mesh Cases Settled for $2.19 Million in Insurance Proceeds. Retrieved from https://www.lexislegalnews.com/articles/4283/neomedic-pelvic-mesh-cases-settled-for-2-19-million-in-insurance-proceeds
  20. Markets Insider. Endo Announces Agreements to Resolve Virtually All Known U.S. Mesh Product Liability Claims. Retrieved from https://markets.businessinsider.com/news/stocks/endo-announces-agreements-to-resolve-virtually-all-known-u-s-mesh-product-liability-claims-1002238293
  21. Nielsen, A. (2015, September 23). Coloplast warns on profit after taking $448 million US lawsuit charge. Retrieved from https://www.reuters.com/article/us-coloplast-charge/coloplast-warns-on-profit-after-taking-448-million-us-lawsuit-charge-idUSKCN0RN0LQ20150923
  22. Perriello, B. (2019, April 12). Pennsylvania appeals court upholds $14m plaintiff win in Ethicon mesh case. Retrieved from https://www.massdevice.com/pennsylvania-appeals-court-upholds-14m-plaintiff-win-in-ethicon-mesh-case/
  23. Reuters. (2013, February 28). Jury awards woman $7.76 million punitive damages for J&J mesh. Retrieved from https://www.reuters.com/article/us-johhnsonandjohnson-award-mesh/jury-awards-woman-7-76-million-punitive-damages-for-jj-mesh-idUSBRE91R14P20130228
  24. Santoni, M. (2019, August 21). Pa. Justices Snub Appeal of $2M J&J Pelvic Mesh Award. Retrieved from https://www.law360.com/articles/1191040/pa-justices-snub-appeal-of-2m-j-j-pelvic-mesh-award
  25. Sieniuc, K. (2016, October 18). No More Vaginal Mesh Suits, MDL Judge Says. Retrieved from https://www.law360.com/articles/852923/no-more-vaginal-mesh-suits-mdl-judge-says
  26. Simson, C. (2015, January 20). J&J Unit Settles 111 Suits in ObTape Vaginal Sling MDL. Retrieved from https://www.law360.com/articles/613169/j-j-unit-settles-111-suits-in-obtape-vaginal-sling-mdl
  27. Stahl, S. (2017, September 26). ‘I Will Suffer For The Rest Of My Life’: Pennsylvania Woman Awarded $57M Verdict In Johnson & Johnson Lawsuit. Retrieved from https://philadelphia.cbslocal.com/2017/09/26/ella-ebaugh-johnson-johnson-lawsuit/
  28. The Settlement Alliance. (2016). Settlement Website for Federal Insurance Company vs Caldera Medical Inc. Retrieved from http://www.calderaclaims.com/#/summaryNotice
  29. U.S. Food and Drug Administration. (2019, April 16). FDA takes action to protect women’s health, orders manufacturers of surgical mesh intended for transvaginal repair of pelvic organ prolapse to stop selling all devices. Retrieved from https://www.fda.gov/news-events/press-announcements/fda-takes-action-protect-womens-health-orders-manufacturers-surgical-mesh-intended-transvaginal
  30. U.S. Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation. (2019, July 16). MDL Statistics Report. Retrieved from https://www.jpml.uscourts.gov/sites/jpml/files/Pending_MDL_Dockets_By_Actions_Pending-July-16-2019.pdf
  31. U.S. Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation. (2019, November 19). MDL Statistics Report – Distribution of Pending MDL Dockets by District. Retrieved from https://www.jpml.uscourts.gov/sites/jpml/files/Pending_MDLs_by_District-November-19-2019.pdf
  32. Vollebregt, A, et al. (2009, Sept. 2). Bacterial colonisation of collagen-coated polypropylene vaginal mesh: are additional intraoperative sterility procedures useful? Retrieved from https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2762530/
  33. Wood, S. (2019, April 25). Pennsylvania woman awarded $120 million in vaginal mesh case against Johnson & Johnson. Retrieved from https://www.inquirer.com/business/health/vaginal-mesh-johnson-and-johnson-ethicon-philadelphia-mcfarland-kline-specter-20190425.html
View All Sources
Who Am I Calling?

Calling this number connects you with one of Drugwatch's trusted legal partners. A law firm representative will review your case for free.

Drugwatch's sponsors support the organization’s mission to keep people safe from dangerous drugs and medical devices. For more information, visit our sponsors page.

(888) 645-1617