Legal claims are being brought by injured women who have undergone surgery to implant transvaginal mesh and pelvic/bladder support medical devices.
Transvaginal mesh and pelvic/bladder support medical devices are used to treat stress urinary incontinence (SUI) and pelvic organ prolapse (POP). These two conditions result in the weakening of of the pelvic region – a common problem after a hysterectomy or childbirth.
On July 13, 2011, the FDA released a medical alert after receiving reports of over 1500 cases where the use of transvaginal mesh and pelvic/bladder support devices caused serious injury to women. The FDA warned physicians that: (1) in most instances the risk of serious injury outweighed all purported benefits associated with the medical devices; (2) traditional procedures that do not use polypropylene mesh devices should be the primary course of treatment; and (3) the implantation of vaginal mesh/pelvic devices should be limited to last resort treatment cases. The reported injuries that these devices are inflicting upon women include:
1. Erosion of mesh into the vagina
2. Serious infection
3. Urinary problems
4. Pelvic pain
5. Vaginal pain
6. Hardening of the mesh
7. Injury to nearby organs
8. Painful intercourse
9. Recurrence of pelvic organ prolapse and stress urinary incontinence
10. Perforations created by the mesh in the bowel, bladder and/or blood vessels
11. Vaginal scarring and other complications
A recent clinical study was conducted to determine the safety of these products. The study was stopped because the problems being seen in the study in patients were too severe. More than 15% of the women in the study experienced the dangerous and painful condition known as “erosion” of the vaginal tissue in which the skins splits and the mesh protrudes. Sabatini and Associates, LLC is actively investigating legal claims on behalf of women who are alleging serious injuries associated with vaginal mesh and the firm is currently accepting new clients involving transvaginal mesh and pelvic/bladder support products.
A Connecticut family seriously injured in a recent car accident has retained the law firm of Sabatini and Associates to represent them in their case. The family was rear ended causing multiple family members including two small children to be injured. The entire family was taken from the collision scene by ambulance to the local emergency room. Our firm’s initial investigation into the collision has determined that the impact of the collision was greater than what the visible property damage to the vehicles would suggest. This was determined by witness accounts of the collision and structural damage to the family’s vehicle behind the bumper cover.
Sabatini and Associates proudly announces that its have been retained by a young Connecticut woman who has suffered injuries including a pulmonary embolism as a result of her use of Yasmin.
Yaz and Yasmin are oral contraceptives taken for pregnancy prevention. Many women who have taken Yaz and Yasmin have suffered severe and life-threatening side effects. Tragically, some women have even died from taking Yaz and Yasmin.
Side effects of Yasmin and Yaz include:
Deep vein thrombosis
If you have suffered any of the serious injuries listed above as a result of Yaz or Yasmin, contact Attorney James Sabatini for a free case evaluation.
In October of 2008, the FDA issued a warning letter to Yaz notifying the birth control manufacturer that two of its commercials made deceptive claims.
The ads in question included a commercial in which women were seen releasing balloons labeled with symptoms of PMS as “Good Bye to You” played in the background. The second commercial cited in the FDA warning letter is one that featured women punching, kicking and pushing balloons, which were also labeled with PMS symptoms, while the song “We’re not gonna take it” played.
In the warning letter, the FDA pointed to two specific claims made in the Yaz commercials that constituted deceptive advertising. First, the FDA said the ads implied that Yaz helps lessen or eliminate the symptoms of PMS when in fact the birth control is only intended as treatment for PMDD.
Second, said the FDA, the ads gave the impression that Yaz treats acne of all severity levels when, in actuality, it is only approved for the treatment of moderate acne.
In 2009, 27 state attorneys general joined together to file a Yaz false advertising lawsuit against Bayer HealthCare Pharmaceuticals, the maker of Yaz. As part of the lawsuit settlement, Yaz agreed to run a new ad to correct the misleading information contained in the offending two commercials.
Yaz is potentially more dangerous to women than other contraceptives due to specific ingredients contained in the Yaz pill. These two deceptive ads encouraged women to take Yaz for purposes other than birth control. Because Yaz became increasingly popular as a treatment for acne and PMS, more women were exposed to the risk of the pill’s life-threatening side effects. If you have been injured by Yaz, please call our lawyers today.
Injuries can occur in car accidents that leave little or limited visible property damage. There is no strong correlation between the amount of property damage and the extent of injuries. If such a strong correlation existed, there would be serious injuries from ever car accident that involved a car being totaled. Yet, everyone has heard or known about car wrecks where the property damage has been overwhelming but the occupants of the vehicle came out without a scratch. There are numerous factors involved as to why an impact from a vehicle collision that leaves limited visible property damage causes personal injuries including: 1) the location of the impact (i.e. rear end collision, side impact, etc.); 2) whether the person had warning of the impact; 3) the positioning of the person’s body at the time of impact; 4) the age of the person (older age results in a greater risk of injury); 5) whether both vehicles were moving at the time of impact; and 6) whether the injured person had a pre-existing condition thereby being more prone to injury. There are other factors as well. Additionally, just because there is limited visible property damage does not mean that there is no other damage to the vehicle. Bumpers have energy absorbing material behind their covers. In many impacts the bumper will show little damage, but when the bumper cover is removed there exists damage to the energy absorbing material.
The items listed above should be explored and potentially used in any car accident case involving personal injuries and limited visible property damage. It is important to pursue such a legal claim with an attorney who has trial experience with such cases. These cases can be won and have been worn by our firm. The most recent favorable jury verdict obtained by Attorney James Sabatini in a car accident case with limited property damage was on September 23, 2009.