Product News and Recalls

Essure Lawsuit Filed in Philadelphia Court

When the first Essure lawsuit was filed in Florida, few would have guessed that it would have ignited a movement. The internet, however, is an incredibly powerful tool for social organization and before long, women all over the country were connecting with each other and discovering that they were far from the only ones that had been injured by the device. One such group on Facebook boasts over 17,000 members.

Essure was developed as a non-surgical alternative to standard sterilization surgery. Rather than suffering the pain and hospitalization of a surgical procedure, women could now have a device implanted in their fallopian tubes that would trigger the formation of scar tissue. That tissue would cause a blockage in the tubes and, from that point, full sterilization would supposedly be achieved. The procedure could be done on an outpatient basis in less than an hour.

It didn’t take long, however, for problems to start according to reports. Horrible complaints of incredible pain, migration of the device, bleeding, and other negative side effects began pouring in and, eventually, injured women began filing Essure lawsuits. Some would begin a campaign to petition the federal government, through the FDA, to remove the device from the market and prevent other women from being harmed.

Philadelphia women have also claimed Essure difficulties. If the reported horror stories of injuries caused by the device aren’t enough to give you pause, the facts of one Philadelphia case might stop you dead in your tracks.

The plaintiff in the case claims that her Essure implantation was done by a physician who had obtained no training on the device prior to her procedure. She also alleges that the device migrated from her fallopian tubes to a position behind her colon and was causing her severe pain and fainting spells.

The Philadelphia lawsuit, in addition, alleges that Bayer, Essure’s manufacturer, provided equipment to physicians to aid in the insertion of the device. Not only did Bayer provide them with no training on the use of that equipment but the equipment may not have actually been approved for use by the FDA. The lawsuit maintains that in order to maintain possession of the Essure insertion equipment, the physician was obligated to buy at least 2 Essure sets from Bayer every month.

As more and more evidence about Essure comes to light, it may appear that this is a classic case of a corporation putting profits over public safety. The laundry list of complaints against Bayer for its role in bringing Essure to market is vast and growing. This new Philadelphia Essure lawsuit could add to that list.