|
No conclusions can be made.The patient's attorney alleges adverse patient outcome associated with the hernia mesh used to treat the patient including permanent injury, recurrence, adhesions, inflammation and subsequent surgical intervention.The instructions-for-use supplied with the device lists recurrence, adhesions, and inflammation as possible complications.A review of the manufacturing records was performed and found that the lot was manufactured to specification.This emdr represents the bard/davol composix mesh e/x (device #1).An additional emdr was submitted to represent the bard flat mesh (device #2).Should additional information be provided, a supplemental emdr will be submitted.Not returned.
|
|
Attorney alleges that, on or about (b)(6) 2011, the patient underwent repair of a lower midline hernia and was implanted with composix ex mesh.On or about (b)(6) 2012, the patient underwent revision of the composix e/x and a non-bard/davol mesh was implanted.On or about (b)(6) 2012, the patient underwent revision of the composix e/x and non bard/davol mesh and then was implanted with 6 x 6 in.Marlex mesh (bard flat mesh).On or about (b)(6) 2014, the patient underwent removal of composix e/x, bard marlex mesh (bard flat mesh) and non bard/davol mesh.It is alleged that the patient experienced and/or continues to experience severe and chronic pain, inflammation, eventration of the mesh, pelvic mass, necrosis, scarring, adhesions to small intestine and bowel, and surgery to remove the meshes.Attorney alleges general allegations for "past, present, and future damages, including but not limited to, mental and physical pain and suffering for severe and permanent personal injuries sustained by the patient." it is also alleged that the device was defective.
|