×

We’ve noticed that you’re using an unsupported browser,
which may result in pages displaying incorrectly.

For a better viewing experience, we recommend upgrading to the latest browser version of:

Skip to main content
You're viewing content for QLD. Change QLD
Menu
Call No Win. No Fee.* Call 1800 555 777
1800 555 777
You're viewing content for QLD. Change QLD

Slater and Gordon announces further potential pelvic mesh class actions

Contact us

Senate inquiry confirms widespread complications

Published on

Leading law firm Slater and Gordon is investigating the potential for further pelvic mesh class actions after a Senate Inquiry confirmed that there have been widespread complications.

The Senate Community Affairs References Committee this week handed down its report into the number of Australian women who have had transvaginal mesh implants.

The evidence presented to the Committee revealed that the prevalence and severity of transvaginal mesh complications was significantly greater than the number of adverse events reported to the Therapeutic Goods Association.

Slater and Gordon Senior Associate Rhea Dhillon said the firm is in the advanced stages of its investigations against the product manufacturers and the findings of the report indicate there may be a good basis for further actions against manufacturers.

“This Inquiry has provided irrefutable evidence of the extensive suffering of women who have received pelvic mesh implants,” Ms Dhillon said.

“What is incredibly concerning is that the risk of complication does not appear to be isolated to any one particular brand, but rather attached to the product itself. Boston Scientific and Coloplast are among the manufacturers we have been investigating.

“We are therefore encouraging any woman who has suffered complications following a pelvic mesh implant to contact us, as we continue to investigate whether that risk was unreasonable.”

Was the risk of pelvic mesh complications unacceptable?

Ms Dhillon said Slater and Gordon had been investigating claims against pelvic mesh manufacturers for some time.
“We have also handled many individual cases for women whose lives have been ruined by pelvic mesh, but this report has now confirmed these were not one-off occurrences,” Ms Dhillon said.
“These complications are in fact widespread and we are looking closely at whether enough was done to protect women from health risks associated with pelvic mesh, including whether there was adequate disclosure of the risks and whether the products where suitable for treating pelvic organ prolapse”.
“Based on the various discussions we have been having with health advocates and gynaecologists, we consider that the findings of this report support our view that more clinical evidence was needed before pelvic mesh products were marketed to tens of thousands of women across the country.”

Who is affected?

Ms Dhillon said any woman who had experienced complications following a pelvic mesh implant in Australia and was not already seeking compensation could potentially be included in further legal action.

“Women whose conditions have worsened following the implant of a mesh device and who continue to suffer from chronic pain should seek legal advice if they haven’t already,” Ms Dhillon said.
“Pelvic mesh implants have ruined hundreds of women’s lives and caused irreparable damage. It is therefore important that every manufacturer who failed in their duty of care is held responsible if this suffering could have been avoided.”

For more information or to register your interest, please visit www.slatergordon.com.au/pelvic-mesh

 

Further reference:

Senate Community Affairs References Committee, Parliament of Australia, Number of women in Australia who have had transvaginal mesh implants and related matters (2018).

Australian Government Department of Health, Submission No 19 to Senate Community Affairs References Committee, Parliament of Australia, Inquiry into the Number of women in Australia who have had transvaginal mesh implants and related matters, 31 May 2017, 18.