Goodbye job applications, hello dream career
Seize control of your career and design the future you deserve with LW career

New mesh implants class action filed

Proceedings have been launched on behalf of women who have suffered “debilitating injuries” caused by mesh implants that “were not of merchantable quality and did not have an acceptable quality”.

user iconJerome Doraisamy 03 March 2021 SME Law
New mesh implants class action filed
expand image

AJB Stevens Lawyers, based in Sydney, has filed Representative Proceedings in the Supreme Court of NSW against Boston Scientific Corporation and Boston Scientific Pty Ltd, on behalf of women who are alleging injury as a result of mesh implants distributed by the defendant.

The firm is arguing, it noted in a statement, that Boston Scientific “breached Australian Consumer Laws by marketing, promoting and distributing medical devices, and did not undertake adequate clinical and/or evaluation of the risks and the effectiveness, including long-term risks and long-term effectiveness, associated with the use of their implants”.

The class is claiming damages based on harm suffered from the devices after having one or more Boston Scientific implants.


The launching of these proceedings follows the return to the Federal Court of the mesh implants class action against the manufacturers and distributors behind Johnson & Johnson, Ethicon, Inc. and Ethicon Sarl, which are seeking to overturn a landmark decision from November 2019.

The claim will be pursued, AJB Stevens espoused, on the basis that Boston Scientific owed a duty of care to patients inserted with implants distributed by Boston Scientific, and that they breached that duty, causing harm to patients.

Moreover, the firm is alleging that Boston Scientific “failed to give any, or any sufficient, information or warning to treating hospitals and treating implanting surgeons, regarding the risks and implant complications”.

“We say the medical implants did not offer sufficient warning, advice or information and ultimately, the medical implants were not fit for purpose,” the firm posited.

“The medical implants were not of merchantable quality and did not have an acceptable quality when being distributed.”

Boston Scientific and/or the supplier of the medical implants, AJB Stevens continued, “knew or ought to have known that there were not insignificant risks of harm to these affected women and that they would ultimately suffer implant complications by reason of these compromised and defective implants”.

The affected women, the firm submitted, “had a perfectly good reason and expectation to be informed of the deficiency of the implant, or at least be warned of matters which would otherwise imply that the implants were not fit for purpose or of merchantable quality within the meaning of the Australian laws”.

In December 2019, Shine Lawyers practice leader Rebecca Jancauskas spoke on The Lawyers Weekly Show about running the aforementioned class action, the implications of the judgement outcome on how product claims will be determined in Australia moving forward, the strategies firms can use to advertise to prospective class action claimants, and her personal journey of running such an involved trial while adjusting to being a mother for the first time.

You need to be a member to post comments. Become a member for free today!