Pelvic Mesh (Transvaginal Mesh) Lawsuit
J&J, Boston Scientific, Bard, Endo — Pelvic Organ Prolapse and Incontinence Mesh Claims
Transvaginal mesh devices implanted for pelvic organ prolapse (POP) and stress urinary incontinence (SUI) have been linked to severe complications including mesh erosion, chronic pelvic pain, organ perforation, and nerve damage. Over $8 billion in settlements has been paid by multiple manufacturers including Johnson & Johnson, Boston Scientific, Bard, and Endo International.
Pelvic Mesh: What It Is and Why It Failed
Transvaginal mesh (also called pelvic mesh or surgical mesh) is a net-like implantable device made of polypropylene plastic used to repair pelvic organ prolapse (POP) — where pelvic organs drop into or outside the vaginal canal — and to treat stress urinary incontinence (SUI). The devices were inserted through vaginal incisions and anchored to pelvic tissue.
Beginning in 2008, the FDA issued public health notifications warning that transvaginal mesh complications were "not rare," citing thousands of adverse event reports. In 2011, the FDA upgraded this warning to a Safety Communication, noting that serious complications are "not rare" and that there is no evidence the mesh is more effective than traditional POP repair. In 2019, the FDA ordered all remaining manufacturers to stop selling transvaginal mesh for POP repair, effectively pulling the product from the market.
Documented complications include: mesh erosion or extrusion through vaginal tissue, chronic pelvic pain, dyspareunia (painful intercourse), urinary problems, infection, organ perforation (bladder, bowel, blood vessels), nerve damage, and the need for one or more revision surgeries. In many cases, complete removal of mesh is difficult or impossible without additional injury.
Settlements and Litigation History
Pelvic mesh litigation is one of the largest mass tort settlements in U.S. history. Multiple manufacturers have paid substantial sums: Johnson & Johnson / Ethicon paid over $3.5 billion across multiple settlements and verdicts; Boston Scientific paid approximately $1.9 billion; C.R. Bard (now part of Becton Dickinson) paid approximately $200 million; American Medical Systems (now Endo International) paid over $830 million; and Endo International (AMS) paid additional sums in later rounds of resolution.
Many MDLs have been resolved. The largest federal MDL was in the Southern District of West Virginia. However, new cases continue to be filed based on injuries discovered or diagnosed after prior settlement periods, and some state court litigation continues.
Who May Qualify
Pelvic mesh claims are filed by women who received transvaginal mesh implants for pelvic organ prolapse or stress urinary incontinence and subsequently experienced complications — particularly mesh erosion/extrusion, chronic pelvic pain, dyspareunia, urinary problems, or required revision surgery.
Key qualifying criteria: implantation of transvaginal mesh by a named manufacturer (Ethicon/J&J, Boston Scientific, Bard, AMS/Endo, Coloplast, Cook Medical), documentation of a mesh-related complication by a physician, and the nature and severity of the complication (requiring surgery is a significant factor).
Because many MDLs have been resolved and statutes of limitations vary by state, anyone with potential pelvic mesh injuries should seek an attorney evaluation promptly to understand whether their claim is still viable and which avenue — settled MDL, state court, or new filing — may apply.