According to the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s Food Safety and Inspection Service (FSIS), Marathon Enterprises Inc. is recalling 7,196,084 million hot dog products as well as other beef and pork products. Consumers had found pieces of bone and cartilage in some of the foods, according to CNN. The agency said the food products may be contaminated with “extraneous materials,” specifically bone fragments.
Products that are affected are dated from March 17, 2017, to July 4, 2017, with use-by or sell-by dates that range from June 19 to October 6, 2017. The food products were sold in stores in 21 states and Washington D.C.
Recalled Brand Name Products
The recall involves hot dogs and sausages sold under the following brands: Sabrett; Papaya King; 1906 Premium; Western Beef; and Stew Leonard’s. The products subject to recall bear establishment number “EST. 8854” inside the USDA mark of inspection. These products were shipped to retail and institutional locations nationwide.
National law firm Parker Waichman LLP has extensive experience and success in representing clients in all types of litigation. Attorneys at the firm are available to answer questions for any individuals seeking legal information for a potential lawsuit.
Sabrett hotdogs are very popular and are sold in many arenas, concert venues, and convention centers across the country, including New York’s Madison Square Garden. FSIS recommends consumers who purchased any affected hot dogs or sausages to discard them or return them to the place of purchase for a refund or exchange.
There was a report of one person suffering a minor mouth injury after eating one of the recalled products, said FSIS. This was the only reported incidence of injury or illness connected with the products, produced by Marathon Enterprises, a regional meats and delicatessen supplier located in the Bronx. The complaints began on July 10, and alerted the USDA (United States Department of Agriculture) to the issue, reports NBC News.
Sabrett Family Business
“As a fourth-generation, family-owned company, Sabrett takes its responsibility to provide safe foods very seriously with a robust internal food safety program,” Marathon said in a statement posted on its website. “Sabrett deeply regrets any concern or inconvenience this has caused its loyal customers.”
Sabrett hot dogs have been a fixture of the New York City area for decades, sold by street-corner vendors from pushcarts adorned with blue and yellow umbrellas. The issue came to the attention of the USDA the beginning of July, when consumers reported finding small pieces of bone and cartilage in the meat, the USDA and the company said.
In making the meat subject to a Class 1 recall, the USDA designates the meat to be a health hazard that presents a “reasonable probability” of causing “serious, adverse health consequences or death,” if consumed, according to its statement. However, the Englewood, New Jersey company said in its statement the recall was made out of “an abundance of caution.”
Prior Hot Dog Recalls
The Ohio-based maker of Nathan’s and Curtis hot dogs had issued a recall for over 210,000,000 pounds of ready-to-eat beef franks after receiving complaints about metal materials in the franks. The affected products were produced on January 26, 2017. Three complaints were received on May 19 about metal objects in frank product packages and the USDA Food Safety and Inspection Service was contacted.
There had been no illnesses or injuries reported in connection to the recall, but the USDA urged customers not to consume the affected products. Those included: Nathan’s SKINLESS 8 BEEF FRANKS with a use by date of August 19, 2017; Curtis BEEF MASTER Beef Franks with a use date of June 15, 2017. The items were shipped to various retailers nationwide and have an “EST 296” establishment number on the package.
Recall due to Listeria Concern
In July 2016, over 372,000 pounds of hot dogs and corn dogs were recalled over concerns of listeria contamination. The USDA said Bar-S Foods, based in Oklahoma, recalled five chicken and pork products that might have been contaminated with listeria. Symptoms of listeria infection include fever, muscle aches, nausea, and diarrhea. The recall had been based on recurring listeria issues at the company, according to CBS News.
Most people recover from listeria infection without medical intervention, but the illness may be serious or even deadly in older adults, pregnant women, newborns, and people with weakened immune systems.
Legal Help for Those Affected by Consumer Products
If you or someone you know has become ill as a result of recalled food products, you may have valuable legal rights. Parker Waichman LLP offers free, no-obligation case evaluations. We urge you to contact our personal injury attorneys at 1-800-YOURLAWYER (1-800-968-7529).
from Parker Waichman http://www.yourlawyer.com/blog/seven-million-pounds-hot-dog-products-recalled/
There are over 9,000 hip implant lawsuits in the Texas federal court involving the DePuy Orthopaedics’ Pinnacle Hip Replacement system that uses the metal Ultamet liner. This is the fourth bellwether trial with the allegedly defective DePuy system that, according to the lawsuits, causes metal poisoning and premature failure.
A bellwether trial means the verdict in the case could provide insight into how other juries might decide claims with similar allegations. The upcoming trial is slated to begin September 5 and will involve product liability and personal injury claims filed on behalf of seven Pinnacle hip patients from New York and New Jersey.
Issues with the DePuy Pinnacle Hip Replacement System
Plaintiffs claim that the all-metal design of the Pinnacle/Ultamet liner system causes the device to release toxic cobalt and chromium metal ions that accumulate in the hip joint and may enter the bloodstream. This causes metal poisoning (metallosis) that severely damages muscle and tissue and can lead to premature hip implant failure that needs painful revision surgery.
In addition to metallosis, recipients of the metal-on-metal hips have reported numerous complications that include pain, loosening of the joint, hip dislocation, and cysts around the joints, and difficulty walking.
Prior DePuy Hip Implant Problems
In August 2010, DePuy, a subsidiary of Johnson & Johnson (J&J) announced a worldwide hip replacement recall for its ASR line of metal implants in response to global reports of metallosis and premature hip failure. In 2013, J&J settled over 9,000 lawsuits by agreeing to pay about $2.5 billion over Depuy ASR hip replacements, which have a metal-on-metal design that is allegedly a “substantial equivalent” to the Pinnacle hip. As the premature failure and metal toxicity rates between the two implant designs are comparable, some have questioned why J&J has not taken a similar course regarding the Pinnacle/Ultamet system.
The DePuy ASR hip replacement had been at the center of medical controversy for the past few years including the recall in August 2010, initiated by Johnson & Johnson. The voluntary DePuy ASR hip replacement recall was on the heels of troubling statistics after reviewing data revealed by the United Kingdom (UK). More than 90,000 devices were included in the recall. The UK joint registry revealed that 13 percent of ASR hip replacement patients had to undergo revision surgery due to debilitating injuries allegedly caused by the all-metal hip implant.
National law firm Parker Waichman LLP has extensive experience and success in medical device litigation, including allegedly defective hip implants. The firm’s attorneys are available to answer legal questions from individuals seeking information for a potential lawsuit.
DePuy Multidistrict Litigation
The U.S. Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation (JPML) centralized pretrial proceedings in May 2011 before Judge Kinkeade in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas as part of a multidistrict (MDL) litigation. An MDL is frequently created to consolidate similar complaints to be heard in one court before one judge. This typically results in lessening court costs, allows a faster outcome, and is generally more efficient.
In 2011, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) began a safety review of metal-on-metal hip replacements. In 2013, the agency confirmed that exposure to metal ions released from the devices may cause severe local tissue reaction and possibly enter the bloodstream, potentially leading to additional symptoms or illnesses. The FDA warned that metal-on-metal hips were linked to higher rates of failure compared to hip implants with alternative components.
In May 2011, DePuy Orthopaedics announced it would phase out metal-on-metal hip implants, including the device implicated in Pinnacle hip lawsuits. The company cited as a factor in its decision, slowing sales, along with the FDA’s intention to enforce more stringent regulations on all-metal hip implants, according to The New York Times.
Former DePuy Pinnacle Verdicts
In 2014, the first Pinnacle bellwether hip trial ended with a verdict in favor of the defense. In 2016, the second bellwether trial awarded the five plaintiffs a total of $500 million. The jury award was reduced to $151 million, in compliance with Texas law governing punitive damages.
The third bellwether trial took place in March 2017. The six injured Pinnacle hip replacement recipients were awarded over $1 billion. That award was subsequently reduced to $543 million.
Have You Been Injured by a DePuy Hip Replacement Device?
If you or someone you know has sustained injury involving a metal-on-metal hip implant, such as a DePuy hip implant, you may be eligible for valuable compensation. Parker Waichman personal injury law firm offers free, no-obligation case evaluations. We urge you to contact us at 1-800-YOURLAWYER (1-800-968-7529).
The U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is announcing a voluntary recall of all PharmaTech liquid products that are distributed by Leader Brand, Major Pharmaceuticals, and Rugby Laboratories, due to suspected Burkholderia cepacia (B. cepacia) contamination. These various drugs and dietary supplements are intended for use in infants and children, and were distributed nationwide.
The FDA is advising health care professionals and patients not to take any liquid product manufactured by PharmaTech LLC, of Davie, Florida, due to the possible Burkholderia cepacia contamination and the potential for severe infection.
Liquid Laxative Products Recalled
A voluntary recall was issued August 3, 2017 by Rubgy Laboratories of Livonia, Michigan for Diocto Liquid and Diocto Syrup, both oral liquid docusate (laxative or stool softener) products, manufactured by PharmaTech.
Additional PharmaTech liquid drug products might also be affected. These products might have been labeled and distributed by Rugby and other companies. The FDA advised that any company that purchased liquid products manufactured by PharmaTech should immediately quarantine them and contact the local FDA pharmaceutical recall coordinator.
National law firm Parker Waichman LLP has extensive experience and success in representing clients in product liability litigation. Attorneys at the firm are available to answer questions for any individuals seeking legal information for a potential lawsuit.
B.Cepacia Bacteria Detected
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) laboratory testing of PharmaTech’s oral liquid laxative detected a strain of B. cepacia, bacteria linked to recent patient infections. There might be some difficulty determining the manufacturer because these liquid products are not labeled with a PharmaTech label.
The FDA recommends that healthcare facilities and pharmacies that suspect they might have liquid PharmaTech drug products, especially oral liquid docusate drug products, to ask their supplier to determine the identity of the manufacturer. The FDA advises patients who are using liquid drug products and who may have concerns, to contact their healthcare professional.
Prior PharmaTech Liquid Drug Product Concerns
An FDA investigation linked to a 2016 multistate outbreak identified B. cepacia in more than ten lots of oral liquid docusate sodium manufactured by PharmaTech. At that time, the FDA advised healthcare professionals and patients not to use liquid docusate drug products manufactured at PharmaTech’s Davie, Florida facility, after being implicated in CDC’s public health investigation. This outbreak led to patient infections that required intensive medical treatment. The 2016 investigation also detected B. cepacia in the water system used to manufacture the product. These products were labeled and distributed by various companies.
In 2005, the CDC was notified by several states of clusters of pneumonia and other infections caused by B. cepacia and associated with contaminated mouthwash.
In 2004, CDC was notified of a voluntary recall of over-the-counter (OTC) nasal spray due to contamination with B. cepacia complex. In addition, in 2004, B. cepacia was linked to infections among intensive care unit patients and associated with exposure to sublingual (under the tongue) probes.
The FDA’s warning includes a reminder to manufacturers of the importance of “robust manufacturing and testing of liquid products to ensure low levels of microorganisms and the absence of any that might cause infection.”
In 2017, the FDA has received reports of several adverse events connected to oral liquid docusate sodium products. Healthcare professionals and patients are advised to report quality problems or adverse events to FDA’s MedWatch Adverse Event Reporting Program.
Symptoms of B. Cepacia Infection
The effects of B. cepacia on people vary widely, ranging from no symptoms at all to serious respiratory infections. The FDA specified high-risk patients in its warning, but said B. cepacia infections “can be serious or even life-threatening.” If “cepacian syndrome” develops, the symptoms will be very severe and include a high fever, according to the Yale School of Medicine.
How B. Cepacia May be Spread
According to the CDC, B cepacia can be spread to susceptible individuals by person-to-person contact, contact with contaminated surfaces, and exposure to B. cepacia in the environment.
Burkholderia cepacia is found in water and soil and resists many antibiotics. B. cepacia mostly infects hospitalized patients who are already very ill, particularly cystic fibrosis patients on ventilators.
- cepacia complex can survive for long periods in water or disinfectants. Healthcare-associated outbreaks of B. cepacia complex infection have been linked to contaminated intravenous medications and solutions, including skin care products, disinfectants, and to inadequate disinfection of reusable medical devices, reports antimicrobe.org.
Legal Help for Consumers
If you or someone you know has been injured by a contaminated product, you may have valuable legal rights. Parker Waichman LLP offers free, no-obligation case evaluations. We urge you to contact our personal injury attorneys at 1-800-YOURLAWYER (1-800-968-7529).
from Parker Waichman http://www.yourlawyer.com/blog/burkholderia-cepacia-bacteria-contamination-update/
Health officials reported that Maradol papayas from Mexico have been associated with 109 salmonella illnesses in 16 states, including one death in New York City, reports the Daily Hornet. A Bronx, New York-based food distributor, Agroson’s LLC, is recalling close to 2,500 boxes of its Maradol Papaya Cavi brand of papayas as a precaution.
Although the Cavi brand did not test positive, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) said it is recommending a recall of all papayas imported from the Mexican farm, Carica de Campeche, in July. The brand was distributed to wholesalers in New Jersey, New York, and Connecticut from July 16 to July 19 and were available for sale until July 31.
Distributor Stops Importing and Selling Certain Papayas
Agroson’s stopped importing papayas from the farm, and issued the recall after being warned by the FDA on August 2. Several brands of Maradol papayas from the farm had tested positive for the salmonella bacteria. The FDA is warning consumers to now avoid Caribena and Cavi brands of Maradol papayas, along with all varieties of papayas from the Carica de Campeche farm in Campeche, Mexico.
The salmonella outbreak has infected 12 people in New Jersey, and 13 in New York with cases reported also in Pennsylvania, Maryland, and Kentucky. The illnesses were reported between May 17 and June 28, with ages of those infected ranging from less than a year old to 95 years old, according to the Daily Hornet.
National law firm Parker Waichman LLP has extensive experience and success representing clients in product liability litigation. Our lawyers are actively reviewing lawsuits on behalf of individuals and are available to answer questions for anyone seeking information for a potential lawsuit.
How to Identify Recalled Papayas
The Maradol papayas are large yellow fruits weighing approximately three pounds that are salmon-colored inside. They can be identified by the PLU sticker, “Cavi MEXICO 4395” printed on it. No other papayas distributed by Agroson’s are subject to the recall and the recalled produce is being removed from inventory and store shelves, according to the FDA.
Most people recover without any medical treatment, but in rare cases, especially in people with vulnerable immune systems, the bacterial infection can get into the bloodstream, producing more serious illnesses that can be deadly, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). In these rare circumstances, the more severe illnesses may include arterial infections, such as infected aneurysms, endocarditis, and arthritis, according to the Daily Hornet.
Healthy people who are infected with salmonella may experience fever, nausea, vomiting, diarrhea (which may be bloody), and abdominal pain for several days.
Agroson’s is taking precautionary measures such as testing each load of papayas for the salmonella bacteria at a private lab, according to the FDA, reports NJ.com
The CDC has found two strains of salmonella – Salmonella Kiambu and Salmonella Thompson – from Mardol papayas in Maryland. The FDA has found three other strains – Salmonella Agona, Salmonella Gaminara, and Salmonella Senftenberg – in papayas imported from Mexico, identifying the “Maradol papayas from the Carica de Campeche papaya farm in Mexico as a likely source of the outbreak.”
The CDC warns that “consumers [should] not eat, restaurants not serve, and retailers not sell Maradol papayas from Mexico until we learn more. If you aren’t sure if the papaya you bought is a Maradol papaya from Mexico, you can ask the place of purchase. Restaurants and retailers can ask their supplier. When in doubt, don’t eat, sell, or serve them and throw them out. Wash and sanitize countertops as well as drawers or shelves in refrigerators where papayas were stored.”
So far, according to the CDC, there have been 47 cases, 12 hospitalizations, and one death from 12 states. The CDC was able to identify one illness cluster in Maryland which linked these cases of salmonella to papayas bought at a store in the Baltimore area. That led to the first advisory to avoid Caribena brand papayas on July 16, according to Food &Wine.
As of August 7, the FDA states, “FDA, CDC, state, and local health officials continue to actively investigate the cases with papaya exposure and will provide updates as additional information becomes available.”
The FDA notes, Mexican papayas have routinely been screened for salmonella since 2011 as part of the importing process.
Legal Information and Advice Concerning Food Recalls
If you or someone you know suffered illness involving a food recall, you may be eligible for compensation. Parker Waichman LLP personal injury lawyers offer free, no-obligation case evaluations. We urge you to contact us at 1-800-YOURLAWYER (1-800-968-7529).
People tend to see value in money free from government control and the fees banks charge, as well as the blockchain, to verify transactions. Bitcoin is a digital currency, used to make payments of any value without fees. It runs on the blockchains, a decentralized ledger kept running by “miners” whose computers crunch transactions and are rewarded in bitcoins. Bitcoin has been viewed as a viable tool for private, anonymous transactions.
What is a Blockchain?
The blockchain is actually a way to structure data, and the foundation of cryptocurrencies like Bitcoin. This allows competitors to share a digital ledger across a network of computers without need for a central authority. No single party has the power to tamper with the records: the math keeps everyone honest. Forty of the world’s top financial firms are experimenting with the technology, according to Fortune.com.
Bitcoin has split into two in an action known as “hard fork” that has divided the virtual currency’s online community. Two competing factions of Bitcoin emerged after some of its leading backers disagreed on the best way to move forward. The new technology, called Segwit2x, has gradually been adopted by key players in recent days and seemed to avert a “civil war” over the next move. The rival system is called Bitcoin Cash.
What is Bitcoin Cash?
In August 2017, the blockchain will support another cryptocurrency, Bitcoin Cash, which is optimized slightly differently. People who currently hold Bitcoin will hold an equal value of Bitcoin Cash following this ‘hard fork.’ Cryptocurrency is a digital currency in which encryption techniques are used to regulate the generation of units of currency and verify the transfer of funds, operating independently of a central bank. “Decentralized cryptocurrencies such as Bitcoin now provide an outlet for personal wealth that is beyond restriction and confiscation.”
As of July 2017, there were about 16.5m bitcoins in circulation. In March 2017, the value of a Bitcoin, at $1,268, exceeded that of an ounce of gold ($1,233) for the first time.
National law firm Parker Waichman has extensive and successful experience in all types of litigation. Attorneys at the firm are available to answer questions for individuals seeking legal information for potential lawsuits.
On the online wallet Coinbase website, it said that it “is hard to predict how long the alternative version of Bitcoin will survive and if Bitcoin Cash will have future market value.” Blockchain, another online wallet, said it has no plans to support Bitcoin Cash, but that if it ends up becoming the more popular version, it will. Those who hold their coins by downloading them onto hard drives end up with both bitcoins and Bitcoin Cash, according to Coinbase.
Bitcoin Controversy Background
Bitcoin has been involved in a years-long ‘civil war’ because the base of the network has slowed as the number of people using the currency has increased.
On one side, there are the so-called core developers who hope to keep the blocks that make up the network limited in their size to protect against hacks. On the other side, are the miners who want to increase the size of blocks to increase the network speed.
Investment Officer’s Insights
According to Charlie Morris, the chief investment officer of NextBlock Global, an investment firm with digital assets, “Bitcoin cash came out of left field.” Morris told Business Insider, “A group of miners who didn’t like SegWit2x are opting for this new software that will increase the size of blocks from the current one megabyte to eight.”
As soon as the split takes place, most people will see their bitcoin holdings double, according to Morris. However, that doesn’t mean the value of investors’ holdings will double. Morris told Business Insider that bitcoin cash (BCC) has been trading in the futures market for about $200 to $400. Therefore, if a split were to occur, BCC would trade somewhere in that range while the value of bitcoin would see a decline equal to the value of the new bitcoin.
The fork, according to Morris, will most likely resemble the Etherium split. Bitcoin’s rival, Ethereum, experienced its own fork in 2016, eventually leading to the creation of the version of the cryptocurrency we know today.
“It will be similar to what happened with Ethereum when Ethereum classic came on the scene,” Morris said. “The two currencies marketcap equaled out to the marketcap of the original Ethereum.” Since Coinbase will not back the new bitcoin cash, people who hold their bitcoin on Coinbases’s system will not see their bitcoin supply double. Therefore, if the price of bitcoin were to decline as a result of bitcoin cash entering the market place, then Coinbase users would see the value of their total bitcoin holdings decrease.
That is the reason Morris believes people could benefit from putting their bitcoin into a private wallet. “If you’re holding it in an exchange, then they might not give you the bitcoin cash,” Morris said.
Legal Advice and Information Concerning Financial Issues
If you or someone you know is seeking information regarding financial issues, Parker Waichman LLP offers free, no-obligation case evaluations. We urge you to contact our attorneys at 1-800-YOURLAWYER (1-800-968-7529).
Hernia mesh lawsuits are on the rise and are being filed across the United States in state and federal courts. Adverse events from thousands of incidents involving pelvic mesh and bladder sling occurrences are also mounting. This begins to show a pattern linking specific injuries with certain hernia mesh products. A U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) investigation uncovered design flaws in numerous hernia mesh products currently on the market.
Potentially Defective Hernia Mesh Products Remain on the Market
There are over 100,000 hernia mesh products implanted every year in the U.S. Many of the most dangerous hernia meshes remain on the market and have not been withdrawn or recalled by the FDA. The FDA allegedly continues to quickly approve untested hernia mesh products, which benefits the medical device manufacturers and may hurt the general public. Bowel obstructions and severe infections are common complications associated with hernia mesh.
When a product is shown to be defective, severely injuring thousands, the FDA is apparently slow to take action. The hernia mesh manufacturers allegedly know of the potentially life-threatening complications their products may cause, but do not warn the public or medical community.
National law firm Parker Waichman LLP has extensive experience and success in medical device litigation, including hernia mesh implants. The firm’s attorneys are available to answer legal questions from individuals seeking information for a potential lawsuit.
FDA Communication on Hernia Surgical Mesh Implants
In April of 2016, the following excerpt is from an FDA article: “Many complications related to hernia repair with surgical mesh that have been reported to the FDA have been associated with recalled mesh products that are no longer on the market. Pain, infection, recurrence, adhesion, obstruction, and perforation are the most common complications associated with recalled mesh. In the FDA’s analysis of medical adverse event reports to the FDA, recalled mesh products were the main cause of bowel perforation and obstruction complications.”
One month later, in June, the manufacturer of the Physiomesh, Ethicon, a subsidiary of Johnson & Johnson removed the hernia mesh due to high rates of complications. Ethicon continues to deny that the Physiomesh was subject to a hernia mesh recall, but does admit that they withdrew the product from the market. To date, there have been very few hernia mesh products actually recalled and the majority of complaints that were reviewed are products that have not yet been recalled, or have simply been “pulled from the market.”
Many hernia mesh products contain a certain kind of plastic known as polypropylene, the same material that is used to make a variety of non-medical products, such as soda bottles and fishing lines. It is popular for use in so many commercial products for the main reason that it is very inexpensive.
There is a Polypropylene Materia Safety Data Sheet (MSDS) that states “Prohibited Uses: Applications involving permanent implantation into the body.” However, the manufacturers of numerous hernia mesh products continue to use polypropylene and deny that polypropylene degrades and contracts.
Whereas larger hernias may need mesh to repair the hernia, there are apparently over 50 different hernia mesh products to choose from, ranging from plastics to gels to pig skins. Inguinal (groin) hernias are usually smaller and can be repaired by a skilled surgeon without the use of mesh.
Alternatives to Hernia Mesh
- Shouldice Repair: A two-layer suture only hernia repair utilizing the patient’s fascia (a thin sheath of fibrous tissue enclosing a muscle or other organ) and tendon.
- McVay Repair: Abdominal tendons are sutured to the inguinal ligament
- Bassini Repair: A suture inguinal hernia repair that preserves the spermatic cord
- Desarda Repair: A suture only repair using multiple layers of fascia
Smaller hernias, typically caused by laparoscopic surgery, do not require mesh to repair and can easily be repaired with sutures by an experienced surgeon. There can be a high rate of hernia recurrence, both with sutures and with mesh. With mesh failure, abdominal tissue and muscle typically adheres to the mesh and must be removed with it.
Types of Hernias
- Incisional: At an old surgical incision
- Umbilical: Near the belly button
- Inguinal: Groin
- Femoral: High in the thigh
- Recurrent: Previous hernia site
- Bilateral: Both left and right sides
Hernia mesh often causes life-threatening complications. Hernia mesh may erode into the bowel, requiring multiple additional surgeries, weeks of hospitalization, partial bowel removal, colostomies, and more. Mesh failure may often cause systemic infection. High rates of dental infections associated with mesh failure have recently been observed.
Hernia mesh is used to repair both ventral (abdominal) hernias and inguinal hernias. Various injuries and complications can occur depending on what part of the body the mesh is placed. A coated hernia mesh is more likely to cause injuries such as infection than a non-coated hernia mesh.
Legal Information Regarding Mesh Implants
If you or someone you know has suffered injuries associated with a hernia mesh product, you may have valuable legal rights. Parker Waichman LLP offers free, no-obligation case evaluations. We urge you to contact our personal injury attorneys at 1-800-YOURLAWYER (1-800-968-7529).
from Parker Waichman http://www.yourlawyer.com/blog/hernia-mesh-fdas-allegedly-slow-reactions-complaints/