Dist. Ct. did not err in granting defendants’ motion for summary judgment in plaintiff’s action, alleging that she incurred certain injuries due to non-specific defects in devices manufactured by defendants, where physician surgically implanted two transvaginal polypropylene mesh medical devises, i.e., TVT-Secur device to treat plaintiff’s incontinence and Prosima device to treat her prolapse, and where, according to plaintiff, her injuries resulted from erosion of mesh into her bladder, vagina and adjacent tissues. Under plaintiff’s theory of case, she was required to provide evidence that eliminated abnormal use of devices or any secondary causes of her injuries. As such, with respect to TVT-Secur devise, record failed to contain any evidence eliminating abnormal use or secondary causes for plaintiff’s injuries. Moreover, with respect to Prosima device, plaintiff presented no medical evidence that secondary causes offered by defendants’ experts, such as plaintiff’s vaginal atrophy and pelvic floor dysfunction, were not likely sources of her injuries, or that device did not perform as reasonably expected in light of its intended purpose.
Federal 7th Circuit Court
Civil Court
Product Liability