If you have suffered from side effects from the Avaulta mesh implant, you may be entitled to financial compensation through an Avaulta mesh lawsuit. These lawsuits are filed by people who have been injured by defective medical devices. In many cases, the victims of a faulty medical device are taken advantage of. Avaulta mesh lawyers will help you understand your legal rights and pursue financial compensation.
Bard failed to warn her doctor about its design flaw
The medical device manufacturer Bard failed to warn Cisson’s doctor about a design flaw in its Avaulta mesh. According to the trial testimony of Roger Darois, Bard’s Vice President of Research and Advanced Technology, the company ignored a MSDS warning that said implantation was not suitable for humans.
Cisson filed a lawsuit against Bard in 2009 alleging negligent marketing and failing to warn her doctor about the Avaulta mesh design flaw. After receiving the implant, she began experiencing severe pain and was unable to control her bowel movements. Her jury found Bard negligent, and awarded her $5.5 million in damages. The jury credited Cisson’s evidence, but rejected her claims of loss of consortium.
Donna Cisson, a resident of Georgia, suffered chronic pain and permanent injuries. She subsequently underwent multiple surgeries to remove the mesh. The defective plastic caused the mesh to corrode and was a factor in the mesh’s failure to function properly.
Bard failed to warn Christine Scott about its risks
The jury found that C.R. Bard, the maker of the Avaulta mesh, was 60% at fault for Scott’s injuries, as it failed to properly test the product and warn physicians of its risks. Avaulta mesh has been linked to multiple complications, including pain, infection, and even device erosion. The company faces numerous lawsuits alleging improper product development and testing.
Christine Scott is not the only woman who has experienced side effects from this implant. Many women have sued Bard over the device, which was supposed to improve vaginal function. While she was forced to remain silent during a court battle, she is now trying to create a support group for other women who have had the same procedure.
The company also argues that the jury should not have considered the negligent misrepresentation theory. The company maintained that Avaulta was FDA-cleared and approved. Despite the fact that there were risks associated with Avaulta, there was no evidence that it was not safe.
Bard failed to prove the product’s long-term efficacy
While Bard claimed its Avaulta Plus mesh provided long-term efficacy, it failed to demonstrate it in a clinical trial. The FDA directed the company to conduct clinical trials in 2012, and Bard pulled the product from the market.
The Court noted that the evidence presented by Bard failed to support its claims that Avaulta mesh is a safe, effective treatment for POP. It also found that the company did not adequately research the product to determine whether the mesh was safe and effective in both short and long-term use.
Some women have had life-changing complications after receiving Bard Avaulta mesh. This surgery can lead to pelvic organ prolapse and cause a variety of other complications. In many cases, the patient may have to undergo multiple surgeries to correct the damage the mesh has done. Fortunately, there are ways to seek compensation for the damages that the surgery caused.
Despite these risks, the company maintains that its IFUs fully list the risks of the procedure. It also relies on the FDA “black box” warning. However, the plaintiff argues that Bard’s IFUs understated some risks and left others out. Furthermore, Bard disputes the need for additional warnings.