|
No conclusions can be made.The patient's attorney alleges adverse patient outcome associated with the hernia mesh used to treat the patient including chronic pain/discomfort, inflammation, dense adhesions, recurrence, and surgery to remove mesh.The instructions-for-use (ifu) supplied with the device lists hernia recurrence, inflammation and adhesions as possible complications.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.Not returned.
|
|
Attorney alleges that on or about (b)(6) 2014, the patient was implanted with non-bard/davol mesh to repair an umbilical hernia.It is alleged that on or about (b)(6) 2016, the patient underwent partial removal of the non-bard/davol mesh and also umbilical hernia repair during which the bard/davol ventralight st w/echo was implanted.It is alleged that on or about (b)(6) 2019, the patient underwent revision of the mesh products.It is also alleged that the patient experienced and/or continues to experience severe and chronic pain/discomfort, inflammation, dense adhesions, recurrence, and surgery to remove mesh.It is alleged that the ventralight st w/echo mesh caused serious injury and had to be surgically removed via invasive surgery and necessitated additional invasive surgery to repair the hernia.It is alleged that the patient has suffered and will continue to suffer physical pain and suffering, as well as mental anguish and emotional distress.Attorney alleges that "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.
|