Transvaginal Mesh Lawsuits

More than 108,000 lawsuits alleged transvaginal mesh caused complications including pain, bleeding, infection, organ perforation and autoimmune problems. So far, one of the largest settlements was about $830 million for 20,000 cases. More than 5,000 lawsuits are still pending.

Transvaginal Mesh Implant and pelvic bone
Transvaginal Lawsuit Facts
  1. Number of Lawsuits 108,008 (5,037 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
  5. Litigation Status Several major settlements. Thousands of cases still pending

Thousands of women who received transvaginal mesh implants to treat conditions called pelvic organ prolapse (POP) and stress urinary incontinence (SUI) say 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.

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

As of July 2019, six implant makers faced 5,037 lawsuits in multidistrict litigation (MDL) in West Virginia. Johnson & Johnson’s Ethicon unit faced 2,298 lawsuits — the most of any manufacturer — followed by Boston Scientific at 1,757, Bard at 726 and American Medical at 174.

At one time there were about 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 July 2019:
Company Pending Actions Total Actions
C.R. Bard 726 15,867
American Medical Systems 174 21,364
Boston Scientific 1,757 26,590
Ethicon 2,298 40,727
Coloplast 81 2,815
Cook Medical 1 645

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 and filed lawsuits say they suffered from painful injuries.

Those 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:
This occurs when implants damage vaginal walls or internal organs.
Studies show that bacteria can grow on implants and cause infections.
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 & Verdicts

So far, manufacturers have paid out billions in settlements and jury verdicts. As of June 2017, at least 18 bellwether cases in the West Virginia MDLs had been tried, settled, dismissed or delayed.

People who filed lawsuits have won verdicts totaling more than $49 million in 10 of the bellwether trials. J&J subsidiary Ethicon has won the only defense verdict of any of the companies in the MDLs.

Since 2014, companies have agreed to settlements in thousands of cases in the MDLs including:
  • May 2014
  • 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
  • August 2015
  • 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. So far, J&J has agreed to settle only four lawsuits and continued to defend itself in court.

Mary and Thomas McGinnis
A New Jersey jury awarded Mary and Thomas McGinnis a total of $68 million in April 2018 in her lawsuit against C.R. Bard Inc. 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 "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 Ehticon’s Prolift and transvaginal tape for incontinence and had several corrective surgeries for pain and other complications.

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.

Elaine Silvestrini
Written By Elaine Silvestrini Writer

Elaine Silvestrini is an award-winning journalist with 30 years of experience covering state and federal court systems. She joined Drugwatch in 2017. Her coverage for Drugwatch has been cited in the CDC’s Public Health Law News and the USA Today Network. Some of her qualifications include:

  • Centers for Disease Control and Prevention certificates in Health Literacy
  • Experience as an assistant investigator for the Federal Public Defender
  • Loyola Law School Journalist Law School Fellowship
Edited By
Kevin Connolly
Kevin Connolly Managing Editor
Legally Reviewed By

23 Cited Research Articles

  1. Vollebregt, A, et al. (2009, Sept. 2). Bacterial colonisation of collagen-coated polypropylene vaginal mesh: are additional intraoperative sterility procedures useful? Retrieved from
  2. 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
  3. Cowen, R. (2018, April 13). Pelvic mesh case: $68M award from Bergen jury. Retrieved from
  4. Federal Insurance Company vs. Caldera Medical, Inc., et al. (2017, March 3). Case 2:15cv00393. Judgment and Bar Order. Retrieved from
  5. Bellon, T. (2018, June 20). Pa. court upholds $12.5 mln mesh verdict against J&J over BMS challenge. Retrieved from
  6. Archer, R. (2018, February 6). 4th Circ. Upholds $18.5M Boston Scientific Mesh Verdict. Retrieved from
  7. 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
  8. 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
  9. The Settlement Alliance. (2016). Settlement Website for Federal Insurance Company vs Caldera Medical Inc. Retrieved from
  10. Feeley, J. & Voreacos, D. (2013, September 30). Bard, Vaginal-Mesh Makers, Said to Be in Settlement Talks. Retrieved from
  11. Godoy, J. (2015, June 5). Cook Group Scores Win in Pelvic Mesh Suit. Retrieved from
  12. Lexis Legal News. (2015, December 1). Neomedic Pelvic Mesh Cases Settled for $2.19 Million in Insurance Proceeds. Retrieved from
  13. Nielsen, A. (2015, September 23). Coloplast warns on profit after taking $448 million US lawsuit charge. Retrieved from
  14. Simson, C. (2015, January 20). J&J Unit Settles 111 Suits in ObTape Vaginal Sling MDL. Retrieved from
  15. Sieniuc, K. (2016, October 18). No More Vaginal Mesh Suits, MDL Judge Says. Retrieved from
  16. (2016, January 4). FDA Strengthens Requirements for Surgical Mesh for the Transvaginal Repair of Pelvic Organ Prolapse to Address Safety Risks. Retrieved from
  17. U.S. Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation. (2017, November 15). MDL Statistics Report – Distribution of Pending MDL Dockets by District. Retrieved from
  18. Densford, F. (2017, March 7). Court Clears Caldera’s $12.3M Transvaginal Mesh Settlement. Retrieved from
  19. Markets Insider. Endo Announces Agreements to Resolve Virtually All Known U.S. Mesh Product Liability Claims. Retrieved from
  20. 11th Circuit Court of Appeals. (2017, October 19). Dubois-Jean, et al v. Boston Scientific Corporation. Retrieved from
  21. Kass, D. (2017, October 19). 11th Circ. Upholds $27M Boston Scientific Pelvic Mesh Loss. Retrieved from
  22. Bellon, T. (2017, October 19). 11th Circuit Upholds 2014 Boston Scientific Mesh Verdict. Retrieved from
  23. U.S. Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation. (2019, July 16). MDL Statistics Report. Retrieved from
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