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)?
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)?
Caring responsive compassionate attorney with experience handling pelvic mesh litigation desires to help you obtain the justice you deserve. Check out my helpful informative question and answer posts on the Post page of this website.
Caring responsive compassionate attorney with experience handling pelvic mesh litigation desires to help you obtain the justice you deserve. Check out my helpful informative question and answer posts on the Post page of this website.
Check out my new book, "Winning Your Pelvic Mesh Case, A Practical Guide for Obtaining Justice, it's Time."
It's the # 1 New Release on Amazon in the Litigation and Litigation Procedures categories. See screen shot above.
Here are the links: https://www.amazon.com/Winning-Your-Pelvic-Mesh-Case-ebook/dp/B07XJTDFLH/ref=sr_1_1?keywords=winning+your+pelvic+mesh+case&qid=1570656943&sr=8-1 (litigation category) and https://www.amazon.com/dp/169111524X?ref_=pe_3052080_397514860 (litigation procedures category)
If you would like to buy the Paperback version of my book you can click on the button below:
Deborah Silver, Esq. has experience preparing Plaintiff Fact Sheets, Medical Chronologies, prepping Plaintiffs for deposition, Defending Plaintiff depositions, and preparing deposition impression memoranda - having worked on a contract basis, temporarily, at a Philadelphia plaintiff's injury law firm that handles transvaginal mesh (TVM) cases.
Deborah Silver, Esq. has experience preparing Plaintiff Fact Sheets, Medical Chronologies, prepping Plaintiffs for deposition, Defending Plaintiff depositions, and preparing deposition impression memoranda - having worked on a contract basis, temporarily, at a Philadelphia plaintiff's injury law firm that handles transvaginal mesh (TVM) cases.
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 is admitted to practice in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, the Federal District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, and New Jersey.
Women are sometimes 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").
Attorney Deborah Silver is admitted to practice in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, the Federal District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, and New Jersey.
Women are sometimes 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").
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.
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.
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).
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).
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.
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.
While there are mesh products that remain on the market, on April 16, 2019, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (aka "FDA") ordered manufacturers of surgical mesh products designed to treat pelvic organ prolapse to stop selling and distributing their products in the U.S. immediately. This order is the latest in a series of escalating safety actions designed to protect thousands of women who undergo surgery to treat their pelvic organ prolapse.
According to Dr. Jeffrey Shuren, the director of the FDA's Center for Devices and Radiological Health, "the FDA has committed to taking forceful new actions to enhance device safety and encourage innovations that lead to safer medical devices, so that patients have access to safe and effective medical devices and the information they need to make informed decisions about their care."
Since the FDA has not received sufficient evidence to assure that the probable benefits of these devices outweigh their probable risks, the agency has concluded that these products do not have a reasonable assurance of safety and effectiveness.
Over the past several years, the FDA has seen a significant increase in the number of reported adverse events associated with the use of surgical mesh for transvaginal "POP" repair.
In January of 2016, the FDA reclassified surgical mesh used for transvaginal repair of POP into the highest risk class of devices, which requires pre-market approval in order to stay on the market.
The FDA's press announcement can be found at: https://www.fda.gov/news-events/press-announcements/fda-takes-action-protect-womens-health-orders-manufacturers-surgical-mesh-intended-transvaginal
My other areas of legal experience include:
- commercial & real estate litigation
- personal injury
- estate planning & wills
- immigration and
- criminal law/DUI.
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.
While there are mesh products that remain on the market, on April 16, 2019, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (aka "FDA") ordered manufacturers of surgical mesh products designed to treat pelvic organ prolapse to stop selling and distributing their products in the U.S. immediately. This order is the latest in a series of escalating safety actions designed to protect thousands of women who undergo surgery to treat their pelvic organ prolapse.
According to Dr. Jeffrey Shuren, the director of the FDA's Center for Devices and Radiological Health, "the FDA has committed to taking forceful new actions to enhance device safety and encourage innovations that lead to safer medical devices, so that patients have access to safe and effective medical devices and the information they need to make informed decisions about their care."
Since the FDA has not received sufficient evidence to assure that the probable benefits of these devices outweigh their probable risks, the agency has concluded that these products do not have a reasonable assurance of safety and effectiveness.
Over the past several years, the FDA has seen a significant increase in the number of reported adverse events associated with the use of surgical mesh for transvaginal "POP" repair.
In January of 2016, the FDA reclassified surgical mesh used for transvaginal repair of POP into the highest risk class of devices, which requires pre-market approval in order to stay on the market.
The FDA's press announcement can be found at: https://www.fda.gov/news-events/press-announcements/fda-takes-action-protect-womens-health-orders-manufacturers-surgical-mesh-intended-transvaginal
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.