Medical Device Injury Lawyer investigates defective hernia mesh products for injured plaintiffs nationwide

.avif)



Thank you for considering The Lyon Firm. At this time, we are not accepting plaintiffs related to this specific consumer issue. However, if you would like to be contacted in the future, please complete the contact form. By completing the form you will be contacted if the Firm begins accepting new cases on this matter, and you will also be included in firm news alerts related to important consumer safety and privacy issues to help keep you informed about related issues.
Hernia mesh implant recipients who have suffered from chronic pain, infection, revision surgery, fistula, adhesions, bowel perforation, bowel blockage or other related injuries should seek medical attention and contact a hernia mesh recall attorney to determine your legal options in recovering medical costs and damages related to Permacol mesh injury.
The Lyon Firm has experience holding medical device companies like Covidien, Bard, Atrium, Aspide and Ethicon liable for injuries caused by hernia mesh products. Covidien’s Permacol mesh implant has allegedly caused hundreds of injuries related to complications with the mesh device.
Joe Lyon is a highly-rated Cincinnati, Ohio product liability lawyer and medical device recall attorney reviewing Permacol mesh injury cases for injured plaintiffs.
The following products are being investigated for potential design defects and related injury caused by the mesh devices:
Covidien has a had a history of mesh product recalls after manufacturing recalled medical devices. The devices have allegedly injured an unknown number of patients and litigation continues. Common Permacol mesh injury may include:

.jpg)
Defective medical device litigation helps to improve patient safety and holds medical device companies accountable when defective products injure plaintiffs and clients.
Attorneys claim several hernia mesh devices were not properly tested before they were marketed and distributed as safe medical instruments.
The companies currently face thousands of pending hernia mesh injury lawsuits. If you have had surgery to treat a hernia using a device and you experience any signs or symptoms of recurrence of the hernia, please consult with a medical and legal expert. The Lyon Firm has experience litigating cases against medical device manufacturers.
Attorneys contend that some hernia mesh devices are not properly tested before they are distributed to the public as safe products. Device companies like Gore, Aspide, Ethicon, Bard, Covidien and Atrium have settled hundreds of lawsuits and currently face countless more injury claims.
If you are unsure about the mesh manufacturer and product used in your surgery and have questions about your hernia repair, contact your Ohio surgeon to obtain medical records. Contact a Cincinnati hernia mesh lawyer to discuss potential hernia mesh injury lawsuits and settlement.
Regardless of treatment, hernias have a high rate of recurrence, and surgeons often use surgical mesh to strengthen the hernia repair recurrence rate. The use of meshes is thought to reduce dramatically the incidence of hernia recurrence.
However, up to 50 percent of hernias may reoccur with an implanted device. This is commonly due to inadequate fixation during the original operation or shrinkage of the mesh. Light-weight meshes may have a higher risk due to their increased flexibility and movement.
Two-thirds of recurrences occur after three years. It is not clear if the type of mesh used has any effect on durability. All mesh products appear equally limited in effectiveness.
Ohio Definition of Defective
Under Ohio law, a medical device is defective if it is unreasonably dangerous for its intended use. A legal cause of action can be based on several types of medical device product defects. Most jurisdictions a version of one or more of these cause of actions.
(1) Manufacturing/ Construction Defect of the medical device:
(2) Defective design and/or formulation of the medical device:
(3) Failure to warn or inadequate warning or instruction associated with the medical device:
(4) Misrepresentation on the Safety or Efficacy of the Medical Device:
(5) Fraud Related to the Safety or Efficacy of the Medical Device
(6) Negligent Distribution or Testing of the Medical Device
Taking the first step doesn’t have to be complicated. In just a few minutes, you can share the basics of your case, and our team will guide you from there: