Wright & Schulte have filed two transvaginal meshlawsuits against Mentor Worldwide LLC and the Coloplast Corporation on behalf of two Georgia women. These Transvaginal mesh lawsuits or Vaginal Mesh Lawsuits are part of MDL 2387 and were all filed on March 4, 2013. The complaints allege that the plaintiffs have sustained severe injuries that have impaired their quality of life due to the defective design of Coloplast's bladder mesh slings. As with previous bladder mesh lawsuits filed by Wright & Schulte, these lawsuits will all be litigated in the U.S. District Court of the Southern District of West Virginia, Charleston Division. As part of the treatment recommended for their pelvic organ prolapse and/or their stress urinary incontinence, the plaintiffs in these vaginal mesh lawsuits underwent surgery to have Coloplast's Aris-Transobturator Sling System implanted in their pelvic region. After sling implantation, however, painful mesh sling complications allegedly developed in both of the plaintiffs and caused them to suffer from severe injuries that greatly impaired their quality of life. Urinary pain, pain during sexual intercourse, vaginal scaring, mesh erosion through the vaginal lining, an increased risk of infection, puncturing of the blood vessels/bowels/bladder and recurrence of SUI are just some of the vaginal mesh injuries reportedly caused by Mentor and Coloplast's transvaginal mesh slings. The plaintiffs in these recently filed vaginal mesh lawsuits include a Georgia woman who had the Aris-Transobturator Sling Systemp implanted in 2009 (case no. 2:13-cv-04155), as well as another Georgia woman who had the same Sling System implanted in 2008 (case no. 2:13-cv-04156).

The U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Georgia held that the developer of a suburethral sling product is not entitled to summary judgment as to an injured patient's claims. Contrary to the developer's arguments, the patient's theories of liability could be found in Massachusetts warranty law and a fact dispute existed as to whether the product caused the patient's injuries. Mentor Worldwide LLC developed a suburethral sling product called ObTape Transobturator Tape, which was used to treat women with stress urinary incontinence. Kathleen Riley, a resident of Massachusetts, was surgically implanted with ObTape in Massachusetts and received all of her subsequent related treatment there. Riley brought an action against Mentor alleging she suffered serious injuries caused by ObTape's design and/or manufacturing defects. Riley also claimed Mentor failed to provide adequate warnings to her physicians about the risks associated with ObTape. Mentor moved to dismiss Riley's complaint because she labeled those claims as "strict liability" claims, which were not recognized under Massachusetts law, instead of "breach of warranty" claims, which were recognized. Mentor also maintained it was entitled to summary judgment as to all of Riley's claims because Riley failed to point to sufficient evidence to create a genuine factual dispute as to whether the alleged ObTape defects proximately caused her injuries. The district court denied Mentor's motion. In so ruling, the court rejected Mentor's argument that Riley's claims must be dismissed because they were labeled as strict liability claims instead of claims for breach of warranty. The court examined the factual allegations to determine whether they stated claims for breach of warranty claims under Massachusetts law and found they did. The district court also rejected Mentor's motion that summary judgment was appropriate because Riley failed to point to sufficient evidence that a defect in ObTape caused her injuries. Based on the evidence, the court found a genuine fact dispute existed as to whether a defect in ObTape caused Riley's injuries.