RSS
TwitterFacebook

Vaginal Mesh Settlements Top $2.6B in Payments by Endo to Resolve All Lawsuits

  • Written by: Irvin Jackson
  • 1 Comment

Contact A Lawyer

Have A Potential Case Reviewed By An Attorney

  • This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.

Endo Pharmaceuticals is setting aside another $775 million to settle vaginal mesh injury lawsuits, bringing the total amount to be paid by the manufacturer to more than $2.6 billion to resolve “virtually all known” claims. 

More than 100,000 product liability lawsuits have been filed against Endo and other manufacturers of transvaginal mesh products used for repair of pelvic organ prolapse and female stress urinary incontinence. Design defects associated with surgical mesh have been linked to severe complications among women, including infections, erosion of the mesh into the vagina, and organ punctures.

In May 2014, Endo became the first major manufacturer to resolve cases, agreeing to pay about $830 million in AMS vaginal mesh settlements. However, in August 2015 the company announced it was allocating $1.53 billion for litigation and settlement costs, and then later added another $834 million specifically for vaginal mesh litigation.

In a quarterly filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission earlier this month, the company indicates that an additional $775 million will be set aside to resolve another 22,000 mesh claims. While this is intended to resolve all known claims, the manufcturer indicates that it is possible further claims may be filed or asserted.

In 2016, Endo also announced it was selling off its Astora Woman’s Health division, a part of its American Medical Services (AMS) subsidiary, which manufactured vaginal mesh products for the company. The move ended Endo’s vaginal mesh manufacturing.

Vaginal Mesh Lawsuits

The litigation over vaginal mesh products was one of the largest mass torts in recent years, with tens of thousands of women filing cases nationwide.

Following several years of litigation, various different manufacturers have reached vaginal mesh settlements to resolve groups of claims involving problems with products manufactured by Endo’s AMS, C.R. Bard, Boston Scientific, Ethicon and others.

The number of cases began to increase rapidly after July 2011, when the FDA warned that it had received thousands of adverse event reports involving problems with vaginal mesh products between January 2008 and December 2010.

After a review of all available data, the FDA concluded that there was no evidence that transvaginal mesh provides any additional benefits when compared to more traditional surgery for treatment of pelvic organ prolapse.

In early 2012, the FDA sent a letter to several manufacturers of these products, ordering that they conduct additional studies and trials to evaluate the safety of transvaginal mesh products, and establish whether they pose an unreasonable risk of injury for women. Since then, a number of manufacturers have decided to stop making the devices to avoid the need to spend money studying the safety of products they have sold for years.

Tags: , , ,

1 comment

  1. Sandi Reply

    TO ANYONE WHO RESPONDS TO A TV COMMERCIAL REGARDING A MEDICAL DEVICE LAWSUIT.
    The attorney who so emphatically assures you on television that their firm will pursue your case is NOT your attorney.
    It’s a vetting system, set up to qualify the best cases, and pass them on to another firm with whom they have contracted. This means that you don’t actually have a say in your representation.
    In my case, my “lawyer” ended up being a well known NYC law firm who ultimately imploded due to internal personal and business indiscretions. It would have made a great TV show,
    but the clients took a back seat, not to mention taking it in the back END.
    Anyone who reads the New York Times knows who I’m referring to. I couldn’t get a return phone call, update or response after more than two dozen attempts.
    The system – as it currently exists – leaves the injured person more stressed out over their lack of attention, input or control.
    Somehow, the system needs to provide a higher level of client input, as well as a reasonable and comprehensive recourse for them. Accountability needs to be assigned to these “land sharks”, who profit at 40+% at our undoing and misfortune.

  • Share Your Comments

  • Have Your Comments Reviewed by a Lawyer

    Provide additional contact information if you want an attorney to review your comments and contact you about a potential case. This information will not be published.
  • NOTE: Providing information for review by an attorney does not form an attorney-client relationship.

  • This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.