|
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, scarring, disfigurement, chronic pain and revision surgery.The instructions-for-use supplied with the device lists hernia recurrence as a possible complication.A review of the manufacturing records was performed and found that the lot was manufactured to specification.This mdr represents the bard/davol sepramesh ip (device #1).An additional mdr 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: the patient was implanted with bard/davol sepramesh ip and bard mesh (bard flat mesh) (the "product").The patient was implanted with bard/davol sepramesh ip on (b)(6) 2015 in the course of an incisional hernia repair surgery.It is alleged that the patient suffered the development of mesh failure, hernia recurrence and chronic pain.It is also alleged that on or about (b)(6) 2015, the patient underwent corrective revision surgery and on or about (b)(6) 2016, the patient underwent another corrective revision surgery.It is alleged that on (b)(6) 2019, the patient underwent another corrective revision surgery with bard mesh (bard flat mesh).It is alleged that the plaintiff "has suffered injuries, losses, and damages resulting from numerous defects in the product that create an unreasonably high risk of injury with severe permanent adverse health consequences." attorney alleges the plaintiff suffered permanent injuries including scarring, disfigurement.Attorney also alleges that the plaintiff suffering, psychological and emotional injuries and permanent physical disability.It is alleged that the plaintiff continues to undergo medical care and treatment.It is also alleged that the patient sustained personal injury, emotional distress and the device was defective.
|