610-517-6004 cell

610-284-4247 Office

Law Office of deborah frankel silver

Quality Affordable Caring Responsive Representation

 LEARN MORE

Are you or someone you know suffering from complications from Trans-Vaginal Pelvic Mesh Implants (polypropylene mesh) used to treat incontinence -- such as pain, bleeding, erosion of mesh into the vagina, bladder, urethra or other pelvic organs, and/or painful sex (dyspareunia)?

Click this text to start editing. This block is a basic combination of a title and a paragraph. Use it to welcome visitors to your website, or explain a product or service without using an image. Try keeping the paragraph short and breaking off the text-only areas of your page to keep your website interesting to visitors.

Caring responsive sole practitioner with experience handling pelvic mesh litigation desires to help you obtain the justice you deserve.

Click this text to start editing. This block is a basic combination of a title and a paragraph. Use it to welcome visitors to your website, or explain a product or service without using an image. Try keeping the paragraph short and breaking off the text-only areas of your page to keep your website interesting to visitors.

Deborah Silver, Esq. has experience preparing Plaintiff Fact Sheets, Medical Chronologies, prepping Plaintiffs for deposition, Defending Plaintiff depositions, and preparing a deposition impression memorandum - having worked as a contract temporary attorney through a staffing agency for Kline & Specter.

Click this text to start editing. This image and text block is great for descriptions about your business, products, or services. Double-click the image on the right to change it. You can also stack more of these blocks to describe items with imagery.

Attorney Deborah Silver has read facts and background information surrounding the mass tort West Virginia federal action handled by Judge Goodwin. She is admitted to practice in the Federal District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania.


Judge Goodwin is overseeing more than 104,000 pelvic mesh cases filed in his Charleston, West Virginia federal district court. Multi-district litigation was intended to ease pre-trial proceedings to enable Plaintiffs to have a quicker resolution of their cases.


Judge Goodwin issued multiple orders affecting over 23,000 pelvic mesh cases - thousands of cases have been put into "waves" or groupings for pre-trial proceedings.


Once discovery is completed the cases can then be transferred to a federal court having proper jurisdiction and venue, or remanded back to the State Court from which they were transferred, so those cases can be tried before a jury.


These "waves" of cases include actions brought against Ethicon (company related to Johnson & Johnson), Boston Scientific, American Medical Systems and BARD.


Both sides, Plaintiffs and Defendants, met in September of 2018 to submit joint venue recommendations so the federal court could order where the specific cases will be tried before a jury.


Cases were then transferred out of the West Virginia federal district court into a State Court where it was originally filed or New Jersey, where Johnson & Johnson has its home.


Ethicon has more than 39,000 cases filed in the multi-district litigation in West Virginia. Ethicon has the smallest percentage of cases settled or resolved.


Depositions are limited to 3 hours, unless more than one mesh manufacturer is involved where, in that case, the parties have agreed that depositions are limited to 4 hours.


Women are often implanted with multiple mesh devices -- trans-vaginal mesh slings to treat stress urinary incontinence ("SUI"), and Prosima or Prolift (or some other mesh product) to treat pelvic organ prolapse ("POP").

Click this text to start editing. This block is a basic combination of a title and a paragraph. Use it to welcome visitors to your website, or explain a product or service without using an image. Try keeping the paragraph short and breaking off the text-only areas of your page to keep your website interesting to visitors.

The applicable statute of limitations must be reviewed, which is the law of the State where the Plaintiff resides. Some states have discovery rules where the statute does not start to run until the woman knows or should know that the mesh is defective and that the mesh's defectiveness is the cause of her injuries.

Click this text to start editing. This image and text block is great for descriptions about your business, products, or services. Double-click the image on the right to change it. You can also stack more of these blocks to describe items with imagery.

In those States, often times, the statute does not start running until the woman saw a television advertisement discussing mesh related complications. Until then the woman might think that her injuries are normal side affects and not caused by defects in the mesh itself.


Other States, such as Alabama, have a 2-year statute of limitations starting from when the woman first suffered an injury from the mesh. In those cases, the statute starts from when the woman first knew she had an injury and sought out medical treatment or advice related to that injury.


The Plaintiff Fact Sheets ask questions regarding when the woman first sought treatment for each of the injuries she claims resulted from the mesh. At Plaintiff depositions the woman is asked the same questions many different ways as to when she first had complications from the mesh, such as asking the woman to focus on the 6-month period following implant surgery, and then asking what complications she had during that 6-month period, and whether she sought medical advice or treatment during that time.


These questions are designed to elicit testimony from the women at their depositions that will result in having their cases thrown out based on the statute of limitations.


Women are asked at their depositions whether they were ever given, shown or read to them product patient brochures which set forth a number of risks. They are then asked whether they would have proceeded with the mesh implant had their implanting doctor told them about the risks stated in the product brochures.


Defendants' lawyers are attempting to elicit testimony that would get the cases thrown out because there is no causation where the women claim they were not even advised of the risks stated in the patient brochures and that they would not have consented to the mesh implant had they been told.


The key is to focus on the severity, frequency and permanence of the risks related to the mesh products, which is what makes the mesh products defective. If the woman testifies that had she known the mesh was a permanent implant, that there was a permanent risk of serious injuries (whatever injuries she sustained) and that had she known that there was a 30% or higher risk of erosion, she would not have consented to the mesh implant, then there should not be a problem whether or not the woman was shown the patient product brochure.


It is important to realize that there are risks to any surgical procedure, including a risk of death, however slight, even in connection with relatively safe procedures such as getting wisdom teeth extracted. Testifying truthfully and accurately as to whatever risk information the implanting doctors actually told the women should not, therefore, hurt the case.


The defectiveness of the mesh is based on the frequency, permanence and severity of the risks. Thus there is still a case regardless of whether the implanting doctor mentioned some of the risks such as bleeding, erosion and even dyspareunia (painful sex).

Click this text to start editing. This block is a basic combination of a title and a paragraph. Use it to welcome visitors to your website, or explain a product or service without using an image. Try keeping the paragraph short and breaking off the text-only areas of your page to keep your website interesting to visitors.

A woman suffering painful sex resulting from a mesh implant should be asked by her own attorney whether she would have proceeded with the mesh implant had she known that she would have painful sex for the rest of her life, or that she would not be able to have sex anymore.

Click this text to start editing. This image and text block is great for descriptions about your business, products, or services. Double-click the image on the right to change it. You can also stack more of these blocks to describe items with imagery.

That is a lifelong risk since the mesh cannot be excised or extracted because of a foreign body reaction and scar plating. When tissue or muscle grows around the mesh it is often impossible to remove in its entirety.


That is something that is seldom explained to women when they are advised to have vaginal mesh implants.


It is unclear how future pelvic mesh cases will be handled. There are mesh products that remain on the market.


There is a motion filed by Defendants that Judge Goodwin is considering, whereby cases that only have one mesh product (not TVT-Secure), and no revision surgeries, that those cases would be voluntarily dismissed without prejudice, and those cases could be re-filed even past the statute of limitations if the women have need of a revision surgery for a mesh erosion within 5 years.


While the judge is considering this motion, he ordered that the no-revision cases have a 6-month stay or extension, in terms of when Fact Sheets must be submitted, and when discovery must be completed.


In some of those no-revision cases, the women are elderly or suffering from dementia, and in some of those instances justice delayed is justice denied. The parameters of the dismissal are still being argued and considered.


My other areas of legal experience include:


   - commercial & real estate litigation

   - personal injury

   - estate planning & wills

   - immigration and

   - criminal law/DUI.

  • commercial & real estate litigation
  • personal injury
  • estate planning & wills
  • immigration and
  • criminal law/DUI.

Contact us to see what we can do for you!

Contact Us