The patient was reportedly implanted with an ams monarc and a biodesign or surgisis posterior pelvic floor graft on (b)(6) 2011, at (b)(6).The patient and her attorney have alleged that as a result of these products being implanted in the patient, the patient has experienced pain, injury, and has undergone medical treatment.The following information was not provided by the complainant: specific information of the alleged injury, specific information regarding whether intervention was performed, specific information regarding why intervention was performed or what type/to what extent intervention was performed, specific correlation between device performance and alleged injury, current patient status.
|
Methods: actual device not evaluated.No testing methods performed as product not returned to cbi.Results: no results available since no evaluation performed as product not returned to cbi.Conclusions: root cause inconclusive due to lack of details provided by the complainant.Evaluation: investigation into this claim included a review of the claim allegations and all other communication and investigation into this report/claim is being handled by our attorney.Summary of investigation findings: based on the information provided by the complainant, details regarding a specific correlation between the surgisis es soft tissue graft's performance and the alleged injury remain unknown.A root cause of the claim allegations is inconclusive due to lack of details provided by the complainant.All other matters relating to this litigation are being handled by our attorney.If/when additional information is obtained, a follow-up mdr will be filed.
|