No conclusions can be made.The patient's attorney alleges adverse patient outcome associated with the hernia mesh used to treat the patient including disability, hernia recurrence and subsequent surgical intervention for mesh removal.The instructions-for-use (ifu) supplied with the device lists recurrence of the hernia as a possible complication.A review of the manufacturing records was performed and found that the lot was manufactured to specification.Should additional information be provided, a supplemental emdr will be submitted.
|
Attorney alleges that on or about (b)(6) 2015, the patient underwent umbilical hernia repair for the implant of two layers of bard ventralex hernia patch.It is alleged that on or about (b)(6) 2019, the patient underwent a second surgery to remove the mesh and repair a recurrence of the patient¿s hernia defect.Attorney alleges that the ventralex hernia patch implanted in patient failed to reasonably perform as intended.It is alleged that the product therefore had to be surgically removed necessitating further invasive surgery to repair the very issue that the product was intended to repair.Attorney alleges that the patient sustained severe personal injuries, pain and suffering, severe emotional distress, obligations for medical services and expenses, severe and permanent pain, disability and impairment.It is also alleged that the device was defective.
|