|
The following was alleged by the patient's attorney: (b)(6) 2015: the patient underwent repair of a ventral incisional hernia.As alleged, a bard/davol 3x3¿ kugel patch (device #1)was implanted in patient during this repair.(b)(6) 2016: the patient underwent surgery to explant the failed mesh device and repair an incisional hernia.Prior to the surgery the doctors.Noted that ¿there is a free edge of the mesh identified inferiorly and there is slight bulging of the intra-abdominal fat into the area of the mesh in a pannus-like fashion.The pattern here suggests dehiscence of the mesh attachment.¿ during the procedure, the old mesh as well as the hernia sac were excised as alleged a bard/davol 4.3x5.5¿ ventrio (device #2) was implanted.On or about (b)(6) 2016:the patient underwent surgery to explant the failed mesh device.During the procedure, the doctor noted ¿it was readily found that the previously placed onlay mesh was completely unincorporated.¿ as reported, patient continues to experience complications related to the bard/davol kugel patch (device #1) and the bard/davol ventrio (device #2).She has already and will likely require additional surgeries to repair the damage from the product.The bard/davol kugel patch (device #1) and the bard/davol ventrio(device #2) implanted in patient failed to reasonably perform as intended.The product caused serious injury and had to be surgically removed via invasive surgery, necessitating additional invasive surgery to repair the hernia that the product had initially been implanted to treat.The patient has been injured and sustained past and future, severe and permanent pain, suffering, anxiety, depression, disability, impairment due to the alleged defective bard/davol kugel patch(device #1) and ventrio (device #2).
|