1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS

_____________________________________

DENISE BURKHART,

Plaintiff,

v.

ETHICON, INC., ETHICON WOMEN’S 

HEALTH AND UROLOGY, a Division of 

Ethicon, Inc., GYNECARE, JOHNSON & 

JOHNSON

Defendant.

____________________________________

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

CASE NO. ____________________

COMPLAINT AND JURY DEMAND

Plaintiff, DENISE BURKHART, by and through her counsel, brings this Complaint as an 

administrative device to set forth potential claims individual Plaintiff may assert against 

Defendants in this litigation. Accordingly, Plaintiff alleges as follows:

I. PARTIES

1. Plaintiff DENISE BURKHART (“Plaintiff”) is, and was, at all relevant times, a 

resident of Antioch, Illinois.

2. Defendant, Ethicon, Inc. is a wholly owned subsidiary of Defendant Johnson & 

Johnson located in Somerville, New Jersey. 

3. Defendant, Ethicon Women’s Health and Urology is a division of Ethicon, Inc. 

located in Somerville, New Jersey.

4. Defendant, Gynecare is a division of Ethicon, Inc. located in Somerville, New 

Jersey. 

Case: 1:12-cv-02170 Document #: 1 Filed: 03/23/12 Page 1 of 37 PageID #:1
2

5. Defendant, Johnson & Johnson is a corporation, and according to its website, the 

world’s largest and most diverse medical devices and diagnostics company, with its worldwide 

headquarters located at One Johnson & Johnson Plaza, New Brunswick, New Jersey. 

II. JURISDICTION AND VENUE

6. Venue is proper as Plaintiff was implanted with Defendant’s Pelvic Mesh 

Products and was injured in this district. 

7. Defendants conducted substantial business in the State of Illinois and in this 

District, distributes Pelvic Mesh Products in this District, receives substantial compensation and 

profits from sales of Pelvic Mesh Products in this District, and made material omissions and 

misrepresentations and breaches of warranties in this District so as to subject them to in 

personam jurisdiction in this District. 

8. Defendants conducted business in the State of Illinois through sales 

representatives conducting business in the State of Illinois and because Defendants were engaged 

in testing, developing, manufacturing, labeling, marketing, distributing, promotion and/or selling, 

either directly or indirectly, and/or through third parties or related entities, Pelvic Mesh Products; 

thus, there exists a sufficient nexus between Defendant forum contacts and the Plaintiff’s claims

to justify assertion of jurisdiction in Illinois.

9. Consistent with the Due Process Clause of the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments, 

this Court has in personam jurisdiction over Defendants, because Defendants are present in the 

State of Illinois such that requiring an appearance does not offend traditional notices of fair play 

and substantial justice. 

Case: 1:12-cv-02170 Document #: 1 Filed: 03/23/12 Page 2 of 37 PageID #:2
3

III. DEFENDANTS’ PELVIC MESH PRODUCTS

10. In or about October, 2002, the Defendants began to market and sell a product 

known as Gynemesh, for the treatment of medical conditions in the female pelvis, primarily 

pelvic organ prolapse and stress urinary incontinence. All references to Gynemesh include all 

variations of or names used for Gynemesh, including but not limited to Gynemesh PS.

11. Gynemesh was derived from a product known as Prolene Mesh, which was used 

in the treatment of medical conditions in the female pelvis, primarily pelvic organ prolapse and 

stress urinary incontinence. Prolene Mesh was derived from Defendants’ prolene mesh hernia 

product, and was and is utilized in the treatment of medical conditions in the female pelvis, 

primarily pelvic organ prolapse and stress urinary incontinence. All references to Prolene Mesh 

include all variations of Prolene Mesh, including but not limited to Prolene Soft Mesh.

12. In or about September, 2005, the Defendants began to market and sell a product 

known as Prolift, for the treatment of medical conditions in the female pelvis, primarily pelvic 

organ prolapse and stress urinary incontinence. The Prolift was and is offered as an anterior, 

posterior, or total repair system, and all references to the Prolift include by reference all 

variations.

13. In or about May, 2008, the Defendants began to market and sell a product known 

as Prolift+M, for the treatment of medical conditions in the female pelvis, primarily pelvic organ 

prolapse and stress urinary incontinence. The Prolift+M was and is offered as an anterior, 

posterior, or total repair system, and all references to the Prolift+M include by reference all 

variations.

14. The Defendants market and sell a product known as TVT, for the treatment of 

stress urinary incontinence in females. The TVT has been and is offered in multiple variations

Case: 1:12-cv-02170 Document #: 1 Filed: 03/23/12 Page 3 of 37 PageID #:3
4

including, but not limited to, the TVT, TVT-O, and TVT-S, and all references to the TVT 

include by reference all variations.

15. The products known as Prolene Mesh, Gynemesh,, Prolift, Prolift+M, and TVT, 

as well as any as yet unidentified pelvic mesh products designed and sold for similar purposes, 

inclusive of the instruments and procedures for implantation, are collectively referenced herein 

as Defendants’ Pelvic Mesh Products or the Pelvic Mesh Products.

16. Defendants’ Pelvic Mesh Products were designed, patented, manufactured, 

labeled, marketed, and sold and distributed by the Defendants, at all times relevant herein.

IV. FACTUAL BACKGROUND

17. Plaintiff DENISE BURKHART was implanted with the Gynecare TVTTM mesh 

(“Product”) during surgery performed on April 17, 2006 at Condell Medical Center in 

Libertyville, Illinois. 

18. The Product was implanted in Plaintiff to treat her pelvic organ prolapsed and/or 

stress urinary incontinence, the use for which the Product was designed, marketed and sold.

19. As a result of having the Product implanted in her, Plaintiff has experienced 

significant mental and physical pain and suffering, has sustained permanent injury, permanent 

and substantial physical deformity, has undergone and will undergo corrective surgery or 

surgeries, has suffered financial or economic loss, including, but not limited to, obligations for 

medical services and expenses, and present and future lost wages.

20. Defendants’ Pelvic Mesh Products have been and continue to be marketed to the 

medical community and to patients as safe, effective, reliable, medical devices; implanted by 

safe and effective, minimally invasive surgical techniques for the treatment of medical 

Case: 1:12-cv-02170 Document #: 1 Filed: 03/23/12 Page 4 of 37 PageID #:4
5

conditions, primarily pelvic organ prolapse and stress urinary incontinence, and as safer and 

more effective as compared to the traditional products and procedures for treatment, and other 

competing pelvic mesh products.

21. The Defendants have marketed and sold the Defendants’ Pelvic Mesh Products to 

the medical community at large and patients through carefully planned, multifaceted marketing 

campaigns and strategies. These campaigns and strategies include, but are not limited to direct 

to consumer advertising, aggressive marketing to health care providers at medical conferences, 

hospitals, private offices, and include the provision of valuable consideration and benefits to 

health care providers. Also utilized are documents, brochures, websites, and telephone 

information lines, offering exaggerated and misleading expectations as to the safety and utility of 

the Defendants’ Pelvic Mesh Products.

22. Contrary to the Defendants’ representations and marketing to the medical 

community and to the patients themselves, the Defendants’ Pelvic Mesh Products have high 

failure, injury, and complication rates, fail to perform as intended, require frequent and often 

debilitating re-operations, and have caused severe and irreversible injuries, conditions, and 

damage to a significant number of women, including the Plaintiff. In a study published based on 

a multi-center randomized controlled trial in August, 2010 in the Journal of the American 

College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, it was concluded that there is a high (15.6%) vaginal 

mesh erosion rate with the Prolift, “with no difference in overall objective and subjective cure 

rates. This study questions the value of additive synthetic polypropylene mesh for vaginal 

prolapse repairs.” Numerous studies published in influential medical journals have reached 

similar conclusions.

Case: 1:12-cv-02170 Document #: 1 Filed: 03/23/12 Page 5 of 37 PageID #:5
6

23. The Defendants have consistently underreported and withheld information about 

the propensity of Defendants’ Pelvic Mesh Products to fail and cause injury and complications, 

and have misrepresented the efficacy and safety of the Products, through various means and 

media, actively and intentionally misleading the FDA, the medical community, patients, and the 

public at large.

24. Defendants have known and continue to know that their disclosures to the FDA 

were and are incomplete and misleading; and that the Defendants’ Pelvic Mesh Products were 

and are causing numerous patients severe injuries and complications. The Defendants suppressed 

this information, and failed to accurately and completely disseminate or share this and other 

critical information with the FDA, health care providers, or the patients. As a result, the 

Defendants actively and intentionally misled and continue to mislead the public, including the 

medical community, health care providers and patients, into believing that the Defendants’ 

Pelvic Mesh Products were and are safe and effective, leading to the prescription for and 

implantation of the Pelvic Mesh Products into the Plaintiff.

25. Defendants failed to perform or rely on proper and adequate testing and research 

in order to determine and evaluate the risks and benefits of the Defendants’ Pelvic Mesh 

Products.

26. Defendants failed to design and establish a safe, effective procedure for removal 

of the Defendants’ Pelvic Mesh Products; therefore, in the event of a failure, injury, or 

complications it is impossible to easily and safely remove the Defendants’ Pelvic Mesh Products.

27. Feasible and suitable alternative designs as well as suitable alternative procedures 

and instruments for implantation and treatment of stress urinary incontinence, pelvic organ 

Case: 1:12-cv-02170 Document #: 1 Filed: 03/23/12 Page 6 of 37 PageID #:6
7

prolapse, and similar other conditions have existed at all times relevant as compared to the 

Defendants’ Pelvic Mesh Products.

28. The Defendants’ Pelvic Mesh Products were at all times utilized and implanted in 

a manner foreseeable to the Defendants.

29. The Defendants have at all times provided incomplete, insufficient, and 

misleading training and information to physicians, in order to increase the number of physicians 

utilizing the Defendants’ Pelvic Mesh Products, and thus increase the sales of the Products, and 

also leading to the dissemination of inadequate and misleading information to patients, including 

Plaintiff.

30. The Pelvic Mesh Products implanted into the Plaintiff were in the same or 

substantially similar condition as they were when they left the possession of Defendants, and in 

the condition directed by and expected by the Defendants.

31. The injuries, conditions, and complications suffered due to Defendants’ Pelvic 

Mesh Products include but are not limited to mesh erosion, mesh contraction, infection, fistula, 

inflammation, scar tissue, organ perforation, dyspareunia, blood loss, neuropathic and other acute 

and chronic nerve damage and pain, pudendal nerve damage, pelvic floor damage, pelvic pain, 

urinary and fecal incontinence, prolapse of organs, and in many cases the women have been 

forced to undergo intensive medical treatment, including but not limited to operations to locate 

and remove mesh, operations to attempt to repair pelvic organs, tissue, and nerve damage, the 

use of pain control and other medications, injections into various areas of the pelvis, spine, and 

the vagina, and operations to remove portions of the female genitalia, and injuries to Plaintiff’ 

intimate partners. 

Case: 1:12-cv-02170 Document #: 1 Filed: 03/23/12 Page 7 of 37 PageID #:7
8

32. Despite Defendants’ knowledge of these catastrophic injuries, conditions, and 

complications caused by their Pelvic Mesh Products, the Defendants have, and continue to 

manufacture, market, and sell the Products, while continuing to fail to adequately warn, label, 

instruct, and disseminate information with regard to the Defendants’ Pelvic Mesh Products, both 

prior to and after the marketing and sale of the Products.

COUNT I

PRODUCT LIABILITY ACT – FAILURE TO WARN

33. Plaintiff realleges and incorporates by reference every allegation of this 

Complaint as if each were set forth fully and completely herein.

34. The Defendants failed to properly and adequately warn and instruct the Plaintiff

and their health care providers as to the proper candidates, and the safest and most effective 

methods of implantation and use of the Defendants’ Pelvic Mesh Products.

35. The Defendants failed to properly and adequately warn and instruct the Plaintiff

and their health care providers as to the risks and benefits of the Defendants’ Pelvic Mesh 

Products, given the Plaintiff’ conditions and need for information.

36. The Defendants failed to properly and adequately warn and instruct the Plaintiff

and their health care providers with regard to the inadequate research and testing of the Pelvic 

Mesh Products, and the complete lack of a safe, effective procedure for removal of the Pelvic 

Mesh Products.

37. The Defendants intentionally, recklessly, and maliciously misrepresented the 

safety, risks, and benefits of the Defendants’ Pelvic Mesh Products, understating the risks and 

exaggerating the benefits in order to advance their own financial interests, with wanton and 

willful disregard for the rights and health of the Plaintiff.

Case: 1:12-cv-02170 Document #: 1 Filed: 03/23/12 Page 8 of 37 PageID #:8
9

38. As a proximate result of the Defendants’ design, manufacture, marketing, sale, 

and distribution of the Pelvic Mesh Products, Plaintiff have been injured, often catastrophically, 

and sustained severe and permanent pain, suffering, disability, impairment, loss of enjoyment of 

life, loss of care, comfort, and consortium, economic damages, and death. 

39. The Defendants are strictly liable in tort to the Plaintiff for their wrongful 

conduct.

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff demands judgment against Defendants of compensatory 

damages, punitive damages, interest, attorneys’ fees, costs of suit, and such further relief as the 

Court deems equitable and just.

COUNT II

STRICT LIABILITY

40. Plaintiff realleges and incorporates by reference every allegation of this 

Complaint as if each were set forth fully and completely herein. 

41. At the time of Plaintiff’ injuries, the Defendants’ Pelvic Mesh Products were 

defective and unreasonably dangerous to foreseeable consumers, patients, and users, including 

Plaintiff, and the warnings labels, and instructions were deficient.

42. Plaintiff adopts the Restatement of Torts (Second) and/or the Restatement of Torts 

(Third), bringing strict product liability claims under the common law, Section 402A of the 

Restatement of Torts (Second), and/or Restatement of Torts (Third)) against Defendants.

43. As a proximate result of the Defendants’ design, manufacture, marketing, sale, 

and distribution of the Pelvic Mesh Products, Plaintiff have been injured, often catastrophically, 

and sustained severe and permanent pain, suffering, disability, impairment, loss of enjoyment of 

life, loss of care, comfort, and consortium, economic damages, and death. 

Case: 1:12-cv-02170 Document #: 1 Filed: 03/23/12 Page 9 of 37 PageID #:9
10

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff demand judgment against Defendants, and each of them, 

individually, jointly, severally and in the alternative, and requests compensatory damages, 

punitive damages, together with interest, costs of suit, attorneys’ fees, and such further relief as 

the Court deems equitable and just.

COUNT III

NEGLIGENCE

44. Plaintiff realleges and incorporates by reference every allegation of this 

Complaint as if each were set forth fully and completely herein. 

45. Defendants had a duty to exercise reasonable and ordinary care in the 

manufacture, design, labeling, instructions, warnings, sale, marketing, and distribution of the 

Defendants’ Pelvic Mesh Products, and recruitment and training of physicians to implant the 

Pelvic Mesh Products.

46. Defendants breached their duty of care to the Plaintiff, as aforesaid, in the 

manufacture, design, labeling, warnings, instructions, sale, marketing, distribution, and 

recruitment and training of physicians to implant the Pelvic Mesh Products.

47. As a proximate result of the Defendants’ design, manufacture, labeling, 

marketing, sale, and distribution of the Pelvic Mesh Products, Plaintiff have been injured, often 

catastrophically, sustained severe and permanent pain, suffering, disability, impairment, loss of 

enjoyment of life, loss of care, comfort, and consortium, economic damages, and death. 

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff demandsjudgment against Defendants, and each of them, 

individually, jointly, severally and in the alternative, and requests compensatory damages, 

punitive damages, together with interest, costs of suit, attorneys’ fees, and such further relief as 

the Court deems equitable and just.

Case: 1:12-cv-02170 Document #: 1 Filed: 03/23/12 Page 10 of 37 PageID #:10
11

COUNT IV

NEGLIGENCE CLAIMS UNDER THE APPLICABLE LAWS OF CONNECTICUT

48. Plaintiff realleges and incorporates by reference every allegation of this 

Complaint as if each were set forth fully and completely herein. 

49. Defendants had a duty to exercise reasonable care in the design, manufacture, 

marketing, labeling, sale and distribution of the Defendants’ Pelvic Mesh Products, including a 

duty to assure that the Products did not cause unreasonable, dangerous side-effects to users.

50. Defendants failed to exercise ordinary care in the design, manufacture, marketing, 

labeling, sale, and distribution, quality assurance, quality control, and distribution of the 

Defendants’ Pelvic Mesh Products in that Defendants knew or should have known that the 

Defendants’ Pelvic Mesh Products created a high unreasonable risk of harm.

51. As a proximate result of the Defendants’ design, manufacture, labeling, 

marketing, sale, and distribution of the Pelvic Mesh Products, Plaintiff have been injured, often 

catastrophically, sustained severe and permanent pain, suffering, disability, impairment, loss of 

enjoyment of life, loss of care, comfort, and consortium, economic damages, and death. 

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff demands judgment against Defendants, and each of them, 

individually, jointly, severally and in the alternative, and requests compensatory damages, 

together with interest, costs of suit, attorneys’ fees, and such further relief as the Court deems 

equitable and just.

COUNT V

COMMON LAW FRAUD

52. Plaintiff realleges and incorporates by reference every allegation of this 

Complaint as if each were set forth fully and completely herein. 

Case: 1:12-cv-02170 Document #: 1 Filed: 03/23/12 Page 11 of 37 PageID #:11
12

53. Defendants falsely and fraudulently have represented and continue to represent to 

the medical and healthcare community, Plaintiff, the FDA, and the public that the Pelvic Mesh 

Products had been tested and were found to be safe and effective.

54. The representations made by Defendants were, in fact, false. When Defendants 

made their representations, Defendants knew and/or had reason to know that those 

representations were false, and Defendants willfully, wantonly, and recklessly disregarded the 

inaccuracies in their representations and the dangers and health risks to users of the Pelvic Mesh 

Products.

55. These representations were made by Defendants with the intent of defrauding and 

deceiving the medical community, Plaintiff, and the public, and also inducing the medical 

community, Plaintiff, and the public, to recommend, prescribe, dispense, and purchase the Pelvic 

Mesh Products for use as a means of treatment for stress urinary incontinence and/or prolapse, all 

of which evinced a callous, reckless, willful, and depraved indifference to the health, safety, and 

welfare of Plaintiff.

56. In representations to Plaintiff and/or to Plaintiff’ healthcare providers, Defendants 

fraudulently concealed and intentionally omitted the following material information:

a) That the Defendants’ Pelvic Mesh Products were not as safe as other 

products and procedures available to treat incontinence and/or prolapse;

b) That the risk of adverse events with the Defendants’ Pelvic Mesh Products 

was higher than with other products and procedures available to treat incontinence and/or 

prolapse;

c) The Defendants’ Pelvic Mesh Products were not adequately tested;

Case: 1:12-cv-02170 Document #: 1 Filed: 03/23/12 Page 12 of 37 PageID #:12
13

d) That the limited clinical testing revealed the Defendants’ Pelvic Mesh 

Products had a higher risk of adverse effects, in addition to, and above and beyond those 

associated with other products and procedures available to treat incontinence and/or prolapse;

e) That Defendants deliberately failed to follow up on the adverse results 

from clinical studies and formal and informal reports from physicians and other healthcare 

providers and buried and/or misrepresented those findings;

f) That Defendants were aware of dangers in the Defendants’ Pelvic Mesh 

Products in addition to and above and beyond those associated with other products and 

procedures available to treat incontinence and/or prolapse;

g) That the Defendants’ Pelvic Mesh Products were defective, and that they 

caused dangerous and adverse side effects, including but not limited to higher incidence of 

erosion and failure, at a much more significant rate than other products and procedures available 

to treat incontinence and/or prolapse;

h) That patients needed to be monitored more regularly than usual while 

using the Defendants’ Pelvic Mesh Products and that in the event the products needed to be 

removed that the procedures to remove them had a very high failure rate and/or needed to be 

performed repeatedly; 

i) That the Defendants’ Pelvic Mesh Products were manufactured 

negligently; 

j) That the Defendants’ Pelvic Mesh Products were manufactured 

defectively; 

k) That the Defendants’ Pelvic Mesh Products were designed negligently, 

and designed defectively;

Case: 1:12-cv-02170 Document #: 1 Filed: 03/23/12 Page 13 of 37 PageID #:13
14

57. Defendants were under a duty to disclose to Plaintiff and their physicians, the 

defective nature of the Defendants’ Pelvic Mesh Products, including, but not limited to, the 

heightened risks of erosion, failure, and permanent injury.

58. Defendants had sole access to material facts concerning the defective nature of the 

products and their propensity to cause serious and dangerous side effects and hence, cause 

dangerous injuries and damage to persons who used the Defendants’ Pelvic Mesh Products.

59. Defendants’ concealment and omissions of material fact concerning the safety of 

the Products were made purposefully, willfully, wantonly, and/or recklessly to mislead, to cause 

Plaintiff’ physicians and healthcare providers to purchase, prescribe, and/or dispense the Pelvic 

Mesh Products; and/or to mislead Plaintiff into reliance and cause Plaintiff to use the 

Defendants’ Pelvic Mesh Products.

60. At the time these representations were made by Defendants, and at the time 

Plaintiff used the Pelvic Mesh Products, Plaintiff were unaware of the falsehood of these 

representations, and reasonably believed them to be true.

61. Defendants knew and had reason to know that the Defendants’ Pelvic Mesh 

Products could and would cause severe and grievous personal injury to the users of the 

Defendants’ Pelvic Mesh Products, and that they were inherently dangerous in a manner that 

exceeded any purported, inaccurate, or otherwise downplayed warnings.

62. In reliance upon these false representations, Plaintiff were induced to, and did use 

the Pelvic Mesh Products, thereby sustaining severe and permanent personal injuries and 

damages. Defendants knew or had reason to know that Plaintiff and their physicians and other 

healthcare providers had no way to determine the truth behind Defendants’ concealment and 

Case: 1:12-cv-02170 Document #: 1 Filed: 03/23/12 Page 14 of 37 PageID #:14
15

omissions, and that these included material omissions of facts surrounding the use of the 

Defendants’ Pelvic Mesh Products, as described in detail herein.

63. Plaintiff reasonably relied on revealed facts which foreseeably and purposefully 

suppressed and concealed facts that were critical to understanding the real dangers inherent in the 

use of the Defendants’ Pelvic Mesh Products.

64. Having knowledge based upon Defendants’ research and testing, or lack thereof, 

Defendants blatantly and intentionally distributed false information, including but not limited to 

assuring Plaintiff, the public, and Plaintiff’ healthcare providers and physicians, that the 

Defendants’ Pelvic Mesh Products were safe for use as a means of providing relief from stress 

urinary incontinence and/or prolapse and were as safe or safer than other products and/or 

procedures available and on the market. As a result of Defendants’ research and testing, or lack 

thereof, Defendants intentionally omitted, concealed and suppressed certain results of testing and 

research to healthcare professionals, Plaintiff, and the public at large.

65. Defendants had a duty when disseminating information to the public to 

disseminate truthful information; and a parallel duty not to deceive the public, Plaintiff, Plaintiff’ 

healthcare providers, and the United States Food and Drug Administration (“FDA”).

66. The information distributed to the public, the medical community, the FDA, and 

Plaintiff, by Defendants included, but was not limited to websites, information presented at 

medical and professional meetings, information disseminated by sales representatives to 

physicians and other medical care providers, reports, press releases, advertising campaigns, 

television commercials, print advertisements, billboards and other commercial media containing 

material representations, which were false and misleading, and contained omissions and 

concealment of the truth about the dangers of the use of the Defendants’ Pelvic Mesh Products.

Case: 1:12-cv-02170 Document #: 1 Filed: 03/23/12 Page 15 of 37 PageID #:15
16

67. Defendants intentionally made material misrepresentations to the medical 

community and public, including Plaintiff, regarding the safety of the Defendants’ Pelvic Mesh 

Products specifically that the Products did not have dangerous and/or serious adverse health 

safety concerns, and that the Defendants’ Pelvic Mesh Products were as safe or safer than other 

means of treating stress urinary incontinence and/or prolapse.

68. Defendants intentionally failed to inform the public, including Plaintiff, of the 

high failure rate including erosion, the difficulty or impossibility of removing the mesh, and the 

risk of permanent injury.

69. Defendants chose to over-promote the purported safety, efficacy and benefits of 

the Defendants’ Pelvic Mesh Products instead. 

70. Defendants’ intent and purpose in making these misrepresentations was to deceive 

and defraud the public, the medical community, and Plaintiff; to gain the confidence of the 

public, the medical community, and Plaintiff; to falsely assure them of the quality and fitness for 

use of the Products; and induce Plaintiff, the public and the medical community to request, 

recommend, prescribe, dispense, purchase, and continue to use the Defendants’ Pelvic Mesh 

Products.

71. Defendants made claims and representations in its documents submitted to the 

FDA and its reports to the public and to healthcare professionals and in advertisements that the 

Defendants’ Pelvic Mesh Products had innovative beneficial properties and did not present 

serious health risks.

72. These representations, and others made by Defendants, were false when made 

and/or were made with the pretense of actual knowledge when such knowledge did not actually 

exist, and were made recklessly and without regard to the true facts.

Case: 1:12-cv-02170 Document #: 1 Filed: 03/23/12 Page 16 of 37 PageID #:16
17

73. These representations, and others made by Defendants, were made with the 

intention of deceiving and defrauding Plaintiff, Plaintiff’ healthcare professionals and other 

members of the healthcare community, and were made in order to induce Plaintiff, and their 

respective healthcare professionals, to rely on misrepresentations, and caused Plaintiff to 

purchase, rely, use, and request the Defendants’ Pelvic Mesh Products and their healthcare 

professionals to dispense, recommend, or prescribe the Defendants’ Pelvic Mesh Products.

74. Defendants recklessly and/or intentionally falsely represented the dangerous and 

serious health and safety concerns inherent in the use of the Defendants’ Pelvic Mesh Products to 

the public at large, for the purpose of influencing the sales of products known to be dangerous 

and defective, and/or not as safe as other alternatives.

75. Defendants willfully and intentionally failed to disclose the truth, failed to 

disclose material facts and made false representations, for the purpose of deceiving and lulling 

Plaintiff, as well as their healthcare professionals, into a false sense of security, so that Plaintiff

and their healthcare providers would rely on Defendants’ representations, and Plaintiff would 

request and purchase the Defendants’ Pelvic Mesh Products, and that their healthcare providers 

would dispense, prescribe, and recommend the Defendants’ Pelvic Mesh Products.

76. Defendants utilized direct-to-consumer advertising to market, promote, and 

advertise the Defendants’ Pelvic Mesh Products.

77. At the time the representations were made, Plaintiff and their healthcare providers 

did not know the truth about the dangers and serious health and/or safety risks inherent in the use 

of the Defendants’ Pelvic Mesh Products. Plaintiff did not discover the true facts about the 

dangers and serious health and/or safety risks, nor did Plaintiff discover the false representations 

Case: 1:12-cv-02170 Document #: 1 Filed: 03/23/12 Page 17 of 37 PageID #:17
18

of Defendants, nor would Plaintiff with reasonable diligence have discovered the true facts or 

Defendant’s misrepresentations.

78. Had Plaintiff known the true facts about the dangers and serious health and/or 

safety risks of the Defendants’ Pelvic Mesh Products, Plaintiff would not have purchased, used, 

or relied on Defendants’ Pelvic Mesh Products.

79. Defendants’ wrongful conduct constitutes fraud and deceit, and was committed 

and perpetrated willfully, wantonly, and/or purposefully on Plaintiff.

80. As a proximate result of the Defendants’ conduct Plaintiff have been injured, 

often catastrophically, and sustained severe and permanent pain, suffering, disability, 

impairment, loss of enjoyment of life, loss of care, comfort, and consortium, economic damages, 

and death. 

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff demands judgment against Defendants, and each of 

them, individually, jointly, severally and in the alternative, and requests compensatory damages, 

punitive damages, together with interest, costs of suit, attorneys’ fees, and such further relief as 

the Court deems equitable and just.

COUNT VI

CONSTRUCTIVE FRAUD

81. Plaintiff realleges and incorporates by reference every allegation of this 

Complaint as if each were set forth fully and completely herein. 

82. Defendants are in a unique position of knowledge concerning the quality, safety 

and efficacy of the Defendants’ Pelvic Mesh Products, which knowledge is not possessed by 

Plaintiff or their physicians, and Defendants thereby hold a position of superiority over Plaintiff

and their physicians.

Case: 1:12-cv-02170 Document #: 1 Filed: 03/23/12 Page 18 of 37 PageID #:18
19

83. Despite their unique and superior knowledge regarding the defective nature of the 

Defendants’ Pelvic Mesh Products, Defendants continue to suppress, conceal, omit, and/or 

misrepresent information to Plaintiff, the medical community, and/or the FDA, concerning the 

severity of risks and the dangers inherent in the intended use of the Defendants’ Pelvic Mesh 

Products, as compared to other products and forms of treatment.

84. For example, scientists in the recent study published in Obstetrics & Gynecology, 

August, 2010, found that the complication rate was so high that the clinical trial was halted early.

100. Defendants have concealed and suppressed material information, including 

limited clinical testing, that would reveal that the Defendants’ Pelvic Mesh Products had a higher 

risk of adverse effects, in addition to, and exceeding those associated with alternative procedures 

and available devices. Instead, Defendants have misrepresented the safety and efficacy of the 

Products.

85. Upon information and belief, Defendants’ misrepresentations are designed to 

induce physicians and Plaintiff to prescribe, dispense, recommend and/or purchase the 

Defendants’ Pelvic Mesh Products. Plaintiff and the medical community have relied upon 

Defendants’ representations.

86. Defendants took unconscionable advantage of their dominant position of 

knowledge with regard to Plaintiff and their medical providers and engaged in constructive fraud 

in their relationship with Plaintiff and their medical providers. Plaintiff reasonably relied on 

Defendants’ representations.

87. As a proximate result of the Defendants’ conduct, Plaintiff have been injured, 

often catastrophically, and sustained severe and permanent pain, suffering, disability, 

Case: 1:12-cv-02170 Document #: 1 Filed: 03/23/12 Page 19 of 37 PageID #:19
20

impairment, loss of enjoyment of life, loss of care, comfort, and consortium, economic damages, 

and death. 

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff demands judgment against Defendants, and each of them, 

individually, jointly, severally and in the alternative, and requests compensatory damages, 

punitive damages, together with interest, costs of suit, attorneys’ fees, and such further relief as 

the Court deems equitable and just.

COUNT VII

NEGLIGENT MISREPRESENTATION

88. Plaintiff realleges and incorporates by reference every allegation of this 

Complaint as if each were set forth fully and completely herein. 

89. Defendants had a duty to accurately and truthfully represent to the medical and 

healthcare community, Plaintiff, and the public, that the Pelvic Mesh Products had not been 

adequately tested and found to be safe and effective for the treatment of incontinence and 

prolapse. The representations made by Defendants, in fact, were false.

90. Defendants failed to exercise ordinary care in the representations concerning the 

Pelvic Mesh Products while they were involved in their manufacture, sale, testing, quality 

assurance, quality control, and distribution in interstate commerce, because Defendants 

negligently misrepresented the Pelvic Mesh Products’ high risk of unreasonable, dangerous, 

adverse side effects.

91. Defendants breached their duty in representing that the Defendants’ Pelvic Mesh 

Products have no serious side effects different from older generations of similar products and/or 

procedures to Plaintiff, Plaintiff’ physicians, and the medical and healthcare community.

Case: 1:12-cv-02170 Document #: 1 Filed: 03/23/12 Page 20 of 37 PageID #:20
21

92. As a foreseeable, direct and proximate result of the negligent misrepresentation of 

Defendants as set forth herein, Defendants knew, and had reason to know, that the Pelvic Mesh 

Products had been insufficiently tested, or had not been tested at all, and that they lacked 

adequate and accurate warnings, and that it created a high risk, and/or higher than acceptable 

risk, and/or higher than reported and represented risk, of adverse side effects, including, erosion, 

pain and suffering, surgery to remove the products, and other severe and personal injuries, which 

are permanent and lasting in nature.

93. As a proximate result of the Defendants’ conduct, Plaintiff have been injured, 

often catastrophically, and sustained severe and permanent pain, suffering, disability, 

impairment, loss of enjoyment of life, loss of care, comfort, and consortium, economic damages, 

and death. 

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff demands judgment against Defendants, and each of them, 

individually, jointly, severally and in the alternative, and requests compensatory damages, 

punitive damages, together with interest, costs of suit, attorneys’ fees, and such further relief as 

the Court deems equitable and just.

COUNT VIII

NEGLIGENT INFLICTION OF EMOTIONAL DISTRESS

94. Plaintiff realleges and incorporates by reference every allegation of this 

Complaint as if each were set forth fully and completely herein. 

95. Defendants carelessly and negligently manufactured, designed, developed, tested, 

labeled, marketed and sold the Defendants’ Pelvic Mesh Products to Plaintiff, carelessly and 

negligently concealing the harmful effects of the Defendants’ Pelvic Mesh Products from 

Case: 1:12-cv-02170 Document #: 1 Filed: 03/23/12 Page 21 of 37 PageID #:21
22

Plaintiff, and carelessly and negligently misrepresented the quality, safety and efficacy of the 

products.

96. Plaintiff were directly impacted by Defendants’ carelessness and negligence, in 

that Plaintiff have sustained and will continue to sustain emotional distress, severe physical 

injuries and/or death, economic losses, and other damages as a direct result of the decision to 

purchase the Pelvic Mesh Products sold and distributed by Defendants.

97. As a proximate result of the Defendants’ conduct, Plaintiff have been injured, 

often catastrophically, and sustained severe and permanent pain, suffering, disability, 

impairment, loss of enjoyment of life, loss of care, comfort, and consortium, economic damages, 

and death. 

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff demands judgment against Defendants, and each of them, 

individually, jointly, severally and in the alternative, and requests compensatory damages, 

punitive damages, together with interest, costs of suit, attorneys’ fees, and such further relief as 

the Court deems equitable and just.

COUNT IX

BREACH OF EXPRESS WARRANTY

98. Plaintiff realleges and incorporates by reference every allegation of this 

Complaint as if each were set forth fully and completely herein. 

99. At all relevant and material times, Defendants manufactured, distributed, 

advertised, promoted, and sold the Defendants’ Pelvic Mesh Products.

100. At all relevant times, Defendants intended that the Defendants’ Pelvic Mesh

Products be used in the manner that Plaintiff in fact used them and Defendants expressly 

warranted that each product was safe and fit for use by consumers, that it was of merchantable 

Case: 1:12-cv-02170 Document #: 1 Filed: 03/23/12 Page 22 of 37 PageID #:22
23

quality, that its side effects were minimal and comparable to other pelvic mesh products, and that 

it was adequately tested and fit for its intended use.

101. At all relevant times, Defendants were aware that consumers, including Plaintiff, 

would use the Pelvic Mesh Products; which is to say that Plaintiff were foreseeable users of the 

Defendants’ Pelvic Mesh Products.

102. Plaintiff and/ or her implanting physicians were at all relevant times in privity 

with Defendants.

103. The Defendants’ Pelvic Mesh Products were expected to reach and did in fact 

reach consumers, including Plaintiff and her implanting physicians, without substantial change in 

the condition in which it was manufactured and sold by Defendants.

104. Defendants breached various express warranties with respect to the Pelvic Mesh 

Products including the following particulars:

a) Defendants represented to Plaintiff and her physicians and healthcare 

providers through its labeling, advertising, marketing materials, detail persons, seminar 

presentations, publications, notice letters, and regulatory submissions that the Defendants’ Pelvic 

Mesh Products were safe and fraudulently withheld and concealed information about the 

substantial risks of serious injury and/or death associated with using the Pelvic Mesh Products;

1. Defendants represented to Plaintiff and her physicians and 

healthcare providers that the Defendants’ Pelvic Mesh Products 

were as safe, and/or safer than other alternative procedures and 

devices and fraudulently concealed information, which 

demonstrated that the Products were not safer than alternatives 

available on the market; and

Case: 1:12-cv-02170 Document #: 1 Filed: 03/23/12 Page 23 of 37 PageID #:23
24

2. Defendants represented to Plaintiff and her physicians and 

healthcare providers that the Defendants’ Pelvic Mesh Products 

were more efficacious than other alternative medications and 

fraudulently concealed information, regarding the true efficacy of 

the products.

105. In reliance upon Defendants’ express warranty, Plaintiff were implanted with the

Defendants’ Pelvic Mesh Products as prescribed and directed, and therefore, in the foreseeable 

manner normally intended, recommended, promoted, and marketed by Defendants.

106. At the time of making such express warranties, Defendants knew or should have 

known that the Defendants’ Pelvic Mesh Products do not conform to these express 

representations because the Defendants’ Pelvic Mesh Products were not safe and had numerous 

serious side effects, many of which Defendants did not accurately warn about, thus making the 

Defendants’ Pelvic Mesh Products unreasonably unsafe for their intended purpose.

107. Members of the medical community, including physicians and other healthcare 

professionals, as well as Plaintiff and the Public relied upon the representations and warranties of 

Defendants in connection with the use recommendation, description, and/or dispensing of the 

Defendants’ Pelvic Mesh Products.

108. Defendants breached their express warranties to Plaintiff in that the Defendants’ 

Pelvic Mesh Products were not of merchantable quality, safe and fit for their intended uses, nor 

were they adequately tested.

109. Defendants’ breaches constitute violations of common law principles and the 

following statutory provisions: Fla. Stat. Ann. § 672.313. 

Case: 1:12-cv-02170 Document #: 1 Filed: 03/23/12 Page 24 of 37 PageID #:24
25

110. As a proximate result of the Defendants’ conduct, Plaintiff have been injured, 

often catastrophically, and sustained severe and permanent pain, suffering, disability, 

impairment, loss of enjoyment of life, loss of care, comfort, and consortium, economic damages, 

and death. 

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff demands judgment against Defendants, and each of them, 

individually, jointly, severally and in the alternative, and requests compensatory damages, 

punitive damages, together with interest, costs of suit, attorneys’ fees, and such further relief as 

the Court deems equitable and just.

COUNT X

BREACH OF IMPLIED WARRANTY

111. Plaintiff realleges and incorporates by reference every allegation of this 

Complaint as if each were set forth fully and completely herein. 

112. At all relevant and material times, Defendants manufactured, distributed, 

advertised, promoted, and sold the Defendants’ Pelvic Mesh Products.

113. At all relevant times, Defendants intended that the Defendants’ Pelvic Mesh 

Products be implanted for the purposes and in the manner that Plaintiff or Plaintiff’s implanting 

physicians in fact used them and Defendants impliedly warranted each product to be of 

merchantable quality, safe and fit for such use, and was not adequately tested. 

114. Defendants were aware that consumers, including Plaintiff or Plaintiff’s

physicians, would implant the Defendants’ Pelvic Mesh Products in the manner directed by the 

instructions for use; which is to say that Plaintiff was a foreseeable user of the Defendants’ 

Pelvic Mesh Products.

Case: 1:12-cv-02170 Document #: 1 Filed: 03/23/12 Page 25 of 37 PageID #:25
26

115. Plaintiff and/or her physicians were at all relevant times in privity with 

Defendants.

116. The Defendants’ Pelvic Mesh Products were expected to reach and did in fact 

reach consumers, including Plaintiff or Plaintiff’s physicians, without substantial change in the 

condition in which they were manufactured and sold by Defendants.

117. Defendants breached various implied warranties with respect to the Defendants’ 

Pelvic Mesh Products, including the following particulars:

a) Defendants represented through their labeling, advertising, marketing 

materials, detail persons, seminar presentations, publications, notice letters, and regulatory 

submissions that the Defendants’ Pelvic Mesh Products were safe and fraudulently withheld and 

concealed information about the substantial risks of serious injury and/or death associated with 

using the Pelvic Mesh Products;

1. Defendants represented that the Defendants’ Pelvic Mesh Products 

were safe, and/or safer than other alternative devices or procedures 

and fraudulently concealed information, which demonstrated that 

the Defendants’ Pelvic Mesh Products were not as safe or safer 

than alternatives available on the market; and

2. Defendants represented that the Defendants’ Pelvic Mesh Products 

were more efficacious than alternative pelvic mesh products and 

procedures and fraudulently concealed information, regarding the 

true efficacy of the Defendants’ Pelvic Mesh Products.

Case: 1:12-cv-02170 Document #: 1 Filed: 03/23/12 Page 26 of 37 PageID #:26
27

118. In reliance upon Defendants’ implied warranty, Plaintiff used the Pelvic Mesh 

Products as prescribed and in the foreseeable manner normally intended, recommended, 

promoted, and marketed by Defendants.

119. Defendants breached their implied warranty to Plaintiff in that the Defendants’ 

Pelvic Mesh Products were not of merchantable quality, safe and fit for their intended use, or 

adequately tested, in violation of Common Law principles and the following statutory 

provisions: Fla. Stat. Ann. §§ 672.31, et seq. 

120. As a proximate result of the Defendants’ conduct, Plaintiff have been injured, 

often catastrophically, and sustained severe and permanent pain, suffering, disability, 

impairment, loss of enjoyment of life, loss of care, comfort, and consortium, economic 

damages, and death. 

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff demands judgment against Defendants, and each of them, 

individually, jointly, severally and in the alternative, and requests compensatory damages, 

punitive damages, together with interest, costs of suit, attorneys’ fees, and such further relief as 

the Court deems equitable and just.

COUNT XI

VIOLATION OF CONSUMER PROTECTION LAWS

121. Plaintiff realleges and incorporates by reference every allegation of this 

Complaint as if each were set forth fully and completely herein. 

122. Plaintiff purchased and used the Defendants’ Pelvic Mesh Products primarily for 

personal use and thereby suffered ascertainable losses as a result of Defendants’ actions in 

violation of the consumer protection laws.

Case: 1:12-cv-02170 Document #: 1 Filed: 03/23/12 Page 27 of 37 PageID #:27
28

123. Had Defendants not engaged in the deceptive conduct described herein, Plaintiff

would not have purchased and/or paid for the Defendants’ Pelvic Mesh Products, and would not 

have incurred related medical costs and injury.

124. Defendants engaged in wrongful conduct while at the same time obtaining, under 

false pretenses, moneys from Plaintiff for the Pelvic Mesh Products that would not have been 

paid had Defendants not engaged in unfair and deceptive conduct

125. Unfair methods of competition or deceptive acts or practices that were proscribed 

by law, including the following:

a) Representing that goods or services have characteristics, ingredients, uses 

benefits or quantities that they do not have;

1. Advertising goods or services with the intent not to sell them as 

advertised; and,

2. Engaging in fraudulent or deceptive conduct that creates a 

likelihood of confusion or misunderstanding.

126. Plaintiff was injured by the cumulative and indivisible nature of Defendants’ 

conduct. The cumulative effect of Defendants’ conduct directed at patients, physicians and 

consumers was to create demand for and sell the Defendants’ Pelvic Mesh Products. Each aspect 

of Defendants’ conduct combined to artificially create sales of the Defendants’ Pelvic Mesh 

Products.

127. Defendants have a statutory duty to refrain from unfair or deceptive acts or trade 

practices in the design, labeling, development, manufacture, promotion, and sale of the 

Defendants’ Pelvic Mesh Products.

Case: 1:12-cv-02170 Document #: 1 Filed: 03/23/12 Page 28 of 37 PageID #:28
29

128. Had Defendants not engaged in the deceptive conduct described above, Plaintiff

would not have purchased and/or paid for the Products, and would not have incurred related 

medical costs.

129. Defendants’ deceptive, unconscionable, or fraudulent representations and material 

omissions to patients, physicians and consumers, including Plaintiff, constituted unfair and 

deceptive acts and trade practices in violation of the state consumer protection statutes listed.

130. Defendants’ actions, as complained of herein, constitute unfair competition or 

unfair, unconscionable, deceptive or fraudulent acts, or trade practices in violation of state 

consumer protection statutes, as listed below.

131. Defendants have engaged in unfair competition or unfair or deceptive acts or trade 

practices or have made false representations in violation of Illinois’ Uniform Deceptive Trade 

Practices Act. 

132. Under the Illinois’ Uniform Deceptive Trade Practices Act to protect consumers 

against unfair, deceptive, fraudulent and unconscionable trade and business practices and false 

advertising, Defendants are the suppliers, manufacturers, advertisers, and sellers, who are subject 

to liability under such legislation for unfair, deceptive, fraudulent and unconscionable consumer 

sales practices.

133. Defendants violated the statutes that were enacted in these states to protect 

consumers against unfair, deceptive, fraudulent and unconscionable trade and business practices 

and false advertising, by knowingly and falsely representing that the Defendants’ Pelvic Mesh 

Products were fit to be used for the purpose for which they were intended, when in fact they 

were defective and dangerous, and by other acts alleged herein. These representations were 

made in marketing and promotional materials.

Case: 1:12-cv-02170 Document #: 1 Filed: 03/23/12 Page 29 of 37 PageID #:29
30

134. The actions and omissions of Defendants alleged herein are uncured or incurable 

deceptive acts under the statutes enacted in the states to protect consumers against unfair, 

deceptive, fraudulent and unconscionable trade and business practices and false advertising.

135. Defendants had actual knowledge of the defective and dangerous condition of the 

Defendants’ Pelvic Mesh Products and failed to take any action to cure such defective and 

dangerous conditions.

136. Plaintiff and the medical community relied upon Defendants’ misrepresentations 

and omissions in determining which product and/or procedure to undergo and/or perform (if 

any).

137. Defendants’ deceptive, unconscionable or fraudulent representations and material 

omissions to patients, physicians and consumers, constituted unfair and deceptive acts and 

practices.

138. By reason of the unlawful acts engaged in by Defendants, and as a direct and 

proximate result thereof, Plaintiff have suffered ascertainable losses and damages.

139. As a direct and proximate result of Defendants’ violations of the states’ consumer 

protection laws, Plaintiff have sustained economic losses and other damages and are entitled to 

statutory and compensatory, damages in an amount to be proven at trial.

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff demands judgment against Defendants, and each of them, 

individually, jointly, severally and in the alternative, and requests restitution and disgorgement of 

profits, together with interest, cost of suit, attorneys’ fees, and all such other and further relief as 

this Court deems just and proper.

Case: 1:12-cv-02170 Document #: 1 Filed: 03/23/12 Page 30 of 37 PageID #:30
31

COUNT XII

GROSS NEGLIGENCE

140. Plaintiff realleges and incorporates by reference every allegation of this 

Complaint as if each were set forth fully and completely herein. 

141. The wrongs done by Defendants were aggravated by the kind of malice, fraud, 

and grossly negligent disregard for the rights of others, the public, and Plaintiff for which the law 

would allow, and which Plaintiff will seek at the appropriate time under governing law for the 

imposition of exemplary damages, in that Defendants’ conduct, including the failure to comply 

with applicable Federal standards: was specifically intended to cause substantial injury to 

Plaintiff; or when viewed objectively from Defendants’ standpoint at the time of the conduct, 

involved an extreme degree of risk, considering the probability and magnitude of the potential 

harm to others, and Defendants were actually, subjectively aware of the risk involved, but 

nevertheless proceeded with conscious indifference to the rights, safety, or welfare of others; or 

included a material representation that was false, with Defendants, knowing that it was false or 

with reckless disregard as to its truth and as a positive assertion, with the intent that the 

representation is acted on by Plaintiff. 

142. Plaintiff relied on the representation and suffered injury as a proximate result of 

this reliance.

143. Plaintiff therefore will seek to assert claims for exemplary damages at the 

appropriate time under governing law in an amount within the jurisdictional limits of the Court.

144. Plaintiff also alleges that the acts and omissions of named Defendants, whether 

taken singularly or in combination with others, constitute gross negligence that proximately 

caused the injuries to Plaintiff. In that regard, Plaintiff will seek exemplary damages in an 

Case: 1:12-cv-02170 Document #: 1 Filed: 03/23/12 Page 31 of 37 PageID #:31
32

amount that would punish Defendants for their conduct and which would deter other 

manufacturers from engaging in such misconduct in the future.

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff demands judgment against Defendants, and each of them, 

individually, jointly, severally and in the alternative, and requests compensatory damages, 

together with interest, costs of suit, attorneys’ fees, and such further relief as the Court deems 

equitable and just.

COUNT XII

UNJUST ENRICHMENT

145. Plaintiff realleges and incorporates by reference every allegation of this 

Complaint as if each were set forth fully and completely herein. 

146. Defendants are and at all times were the manufacturers, sellers, and/or suppliers

of the Defendants’ Pelvic Mesh Products.

147. Plaintiff paid for the Defendants’ Pelvic Mesh Products for the purpose of 

treatment of stress urinary incontinence and/ or pelvic organ prolapse or other similar condition.

148. Defendants have accepted payment by Plaintiff and others on Plaintiff’ behalf for 

the purchase of the Defendants’ Pelvic Mesh Products.

149. Plaintiff has not received the safe and effective medical devices for which they 

paid.

150. It would be inequitable for Defendants to keep this money since Plaintiff did not 

in fact receive a safe and effective medical device.

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff demands judgment against Defendants, and each of them, 

individually, jointly, severally and in the alternative, and requests compensatory damages, 

Case: 1:12-cv-02170 Document #: 1 Filed: 03/23/12 Page 32 of 37 PageID #:32
33

together with interest, costs of suit, attorneys’ fees, and such further relief as the Court deems 

equitable and just.

COUNT XIII

PUNITIVE DAMAGES

151. Plaintiff realleges and incorporates by reference every allegation of this 

Complaint as if each were set forth fully and completely herein. 

152. At all times relevant hereto, Defendants knew or should have known that the 

Defendants’ Pelvic Mesh Products were inherently more dangerous with respect to the risks of 

erosion, failure, pain and suffering, loss of life’s enjoyment, remedial surgeries and treatments in 

an effort to cure the conditions proximately related to the use of the product, as well as other 

severe and personal injuries which are permanent and lasting in nature. 

153. At all times material hereto, Defendants attempted to misrepresent and did 

misrepresent facts concerning the safety of the Defendants’ Pelvic Mesh Products.

154. Defendants’ misrepresentation included knowingly withholding material 

information from the medical community and the public, including Plaintiff, concerning the 

safety and efficacy of the Defendants’ Pelvic Mesh Products. 

155. At all times material hereto, Defendants knew and recklessly disregarded the fact 

that the Defendants’ Pelvic Mesh Products cause debilitating and potentially lethal side effects 

with greater frequency than safer alternative methods products and/or procedures and/or 

treatment.

156. At all times material hereto, Defendants knew and recklessly disregarded the fact 

that the Defendants’ Pelvic Mesh Products cause debilitating and potentially lethal side effects

Case: 1:12-cv-02170 Document #: 1 Filed: 03/23/12 Page 33 of 37 PageID #:33
34

with greater frequency than safer alternative products and/or methods of treatment and recklessly 

failed to advise the FDA of same.

157. At all times material hereto, Defendants intentionally misstated and 

misrepresented data and continue to misrepresent data so as to minimize the risk of injuries 

caused by the Defendants’ Pelvic Mesh Products.

158. Notwithstanding the foregoing, Defendants continue to aggressively market the 

Defendants’ Pelvic Mesh Products to consumers, without disclosing the true risk of side effects 

where there were safer alternatives.

159. Defendants knew of the Defendants’ Pelvic Mesh Products defective and 

unreasonably dangerous nature, but continued to manufacture, produce, assemble, market, 

distribute, and sell the Defendants’ Pelvic Mesh Products so as to maximize sales and profits at 

the expense of the health and safety of the Public, including Plaintiff, in conscious and/or 

negligent disregard of the foreseeable harm caused by the Defendants’ Pelvic Mesh Products.

160. Defendants continue to intentionally conceal and/or recklessly and/or grossly 

negligently fail to disclose to the public, including Plaintiff, the serious side effects of the

Defendants’ Pelvic Mesh Products in order to ensure continued and increased sales.

161. Defendants’ intentionally reckless and/or grossly negligent failure to disclose 

information deprived Plaintiff of necessary information to enable them to weigh the true risks of 

using the Defendants’ Pelvic Mesh Products against their benefits.

162. As a direct and proximate result of the foregoing acts and omissions, Plaintiff

have required and will require health care and services, and have incurred medical, health care, 

incidental, and related expenses. Plaintiff are informed and believe and further allege that 

Case: 1:12-cv-02170 Document #: 1 Filed: 03/23/12 Page 34 of 37 PageID #:34
35

Plaintiff will in the future be required to obtain further medical care and/or hospital care and 

medical services.

163. Defendants have engaged in conduct entitling Plaintiff to an award of punitive 

damages pursuant to Illinois Law. 

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff demands judgment against Defendants, and each of them, 

individually, jointly, severally and in the alternative, and requests compensatory damages, 

together with interest, costs of suit, attorneys’ fees, and such further relief as the Court deems 

equitable and just.

PRAYER FOR RELIEF

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff demands judgment against Defendants, and each of them, 

individually, jointly and severally and requests compensatory damages, together with interest, 

cost of suit, attorneys’ fees, and all such other relief as the Court deems just and proper as well 

as:

i. Compensatory damages to Plaintiff for past, present, and future damages, 

including, but not limited to, pain and suffering for severe and permanent personal 

injuries sustained by Plaintiff, health and medical care costs, together with interest 

and costs as provided by law;

ii. Restitution and disgorgement of profits;

iii. Reasonable attorneys’ fees;

iv. The costs of these proceedings;

v. All ascertainable economic damages; 

vi. Punitive damages; 

vii. Survival damages (if applicable);

Case: 1:12-cv-02170 Document #: 1 Filed: 03/23/12 Page 35 of 37 PageID #:35
36

viii. Wrongful death damages (if applicable); and

ix. Such other and further relief as this Court deems just and proper.

DATED: March 23, 2012

/s/ Peter J. Flowers 

Peter J. Flowers (#06210847) 

PJF@Foote-Meyers.com

Foote, Meyers, Mielke & Flowers, LLC. 

3 North Second Street, Suite 300

St. Charles, Illinois 60174

Phone: (630) 232-6333

Case: 1:12-cv-02170 Document #: 1 Filed: 03/23/12 Page 36 of 37 PageID #:36
37

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I hereby certify that on March 23, 2012, I electronically filed the foregoing document 

with the clerk of the court for the U.S. District Court, Northern District of Illinois, using the 

electronic case filing system of the Court. 

/s/ Peter J. Flowers___________

Case: 1:12-cv-02170 Document #: 1 Filed: 03/23/12 Page 37 of 37 PageID #:37