Fort Lauderdale, FLEncouraging women with AMS transvaginal mesh complications to have the device removed in order to ensure a bigger cash payout is unethical, to say the least. This scenario sounds as horrific as stealing kidneys from someone in a third world country. Actually, it’s worse, because the scene is Florida and it’s happening now.
Back in the late 1990s headlines such as “Travelers Beware” were rampant over the Internet--outrageous stories about organ selling, such as drugged travelers waking up in ice-cold baths after the kidney thief left the hotel, cooler in hand. Of course there is nothing associated with having a kidney removed and having transvaginal mesh removed. Or is there?
Both surgical procedures are “illicit enterprises” that benefit a third party financially. These third parties are the kidney thieves paid on the black market. They are law firms that allegedly and highly improperly solicited AMS plaintiffs, women suffering from mesh complications, in the 100,000-case mesh litigation. The women who were (allegedly) approached did not have the mesh removed, for one reason or another. But these law firms know that a plaintiff’s case is worth more money if she has undergone mesh removal.
There is a lot of money to be made from women injured by transvaginal mesh. And a lot of people benefit. For instance (and this is rather convoluted, but please bear with us),
A small group of companies operated under the umbrella of Excelium Group, including Excelium Management, and Law Firm HQ: a legal marketing business claimed to have generated more than 10,000 transvaginal mesh cases against manufacturers. Another law firm, AkinMears law firm, allegedly paid $45 million to four small law firms linked to Law Firm HQ in order to acquire mass torts dockets generated by Law Firm HQ.
So American Medical Systems (AMS) subpoenaed Law Firm HQ, AkinMears and a few other law firms. AMS claims that Law Firm HQ was at the heart of an “illicit enterprise” that steered mesh plaintiffs into unnecessary surgery in order to inflate damages claims.
According to Reuters, Law Firm HQ and others are fighting the AMS subpoenas, arguing that the pelvic mesh maker is improperly attempting to invade attorney-client privilege and that the defendant’s demands for information are irrelevant to the real issue of AMS’ liability to women implanted with mesh.
If you or a loved one have suffered losses in this case, please click the link below and your complaint will be sent to a drugs & medical lawyer who may evaluate your AMS Transvaginal Mesh claim at no cost or obligation.