The number of vaginal mesh lawsuits continue to grow with some monetary awards being in the millions and even husbands being awarded monetary damages up to $500,000 because of how their own lives have been affected by the problems their wives have had.

A new lawsuit was filed in October 2011 by a woman who claims that she experienced severe consequences because of the use of vaginal mesh to treat stress urinary incontinence.

The plaintiff states in her complaint that on January 4, 2008, she received the mesh implant.

Are you a victim? You may be eligible for financial compensation. To learn more about the legal options that may be available to you, contact a Minneapolis injury attorney from TSR Injury Law today for your free consultation.

Stress urinary incontinence and pelvic organ prolapsed occur when the pelvic muscles weaken. This tends to be associated with menopause, childbirth, or surgery. The plaintiff claims that it wasn’t long after the implant as in place that she started experiencing pelvic pain, urinary issues, infection, and a number of other injuries. This resulted in her hiring a vaginal mesh attorney who would assist her and her husband with their lawsuit.

This plaintiff is just one of many, as many others have experienced the same systems and others, such as immune reactions to the mesh and friction between tissue and the mesh. Major nerves have been injured and the mesh has degraded within the body. The FDA had notified patients in 2008 of the warnings associated with the products, advising patients that the complications were common. However, there are many products remaining on the market.

In the October 2012 case, the plaintiff is looking for damages from the manufacturer for pain and suffering and they want to discourage the profits of the company.

As more plaintiffs come forward, they are seeking compensation after they have exhausted their emotional and financial resources from trying to treat the health problems that the implants have caused. In addition, the manufacturers are also ordered to pay for corrective surgery, if corrective surgery can be performed to correct the problem. In some cases, the old mesh cannot be removed or the issue cannot be corrected, resulting in even more severe lifelong consequences.