Hidden Risks of Surgical Mesh, Hip Implants, and Defective Medical Devices

You went in for surgery to fix a problem.

The surgeon was confident. The device was FDA-cleared. The procedure was “routine.” And for a while maybe months, maybe even years everything seemed fine.

Then the pain came back. Different this time. Deeper. Unexplained. You returned to your doctor, had more scans, more tests, more appointments. And finally, someone said the words that changed everything:

“It might be the device.”

If that scenario sounds familiar, you are not alone and you are not out of options.

Every year, tens of thousands of Americans discover that the surgical mesh implanted to repair their hernia, the metal hip replacement that was supposed to last a lifetime, or another implanted medical device has caused serious, sometimes catastrophic harm. Many of them had no idea these risks existed. Many were never warned. And many assume incorrectly that there’s nothing they can do about it, especially if the surgery was years ago.

This guide exists to change that assumption. Whether your device was implanted last year or a decade ago, the law may still be firmly on your side.

Contact Legal Claim Counsel today for a free, confidential case review →

The Dirty Secret the Medical Device Industry Doesn’t Want You to Know

Here’s something that shocks most people when they learn it: the vast majority of medical devices in the United States including implants permanently placed inside your body do not go through rigorous clinical trial testing before they reach the market.

Instead, they enter through a regulatory shortcut known as the 510(k) clearance pathway, which allows a device to reach patients simply by showing it is “substantially equivalent” to a device already on the market even if that prior device was itself later recalled.

That’s not a conspiracy theory. It’s federal policy and it has led to some of the most devastating mass harm events in American medical history.

The FDA has recalled thousands of medical devices over the years, many after causing serious injuries, organ damage, chronic pain, or death in patients who had no idea they were essentially human test subjects for undertested technology.

When these devices fail and fail they do the companies that made them are legally accountable. And so are the distributors, the hospitals, and sometimes the surgeons who used devices they knew or should have known carried unacceptable risks.

The question isn’t whether you deserved better. You did. The question is whether you still have time to hold someone accountable.

The answer is very often: yes.

Surgical Mesh: The Implant That Has Harmed Hundreds of Thousands Surgical mesh is a woven or knitted material typically made of synthetic polypropylene plastic or biological tissue surgically implanted to reinforce weakened tissue or close openings in the body wall.

It is most commonly used in two contexts:

Hernia repair: Mesh is placed over or inside the hernia defect to prevent recurrence
Pelvic organ prolapse and stress urinary incontinence (SUI): Transvaginal mesh is implanted to support prolapsed pelvic organs or treat urinary leakage

Both applications have produced an enormous and still-growing wave of lawsuits. Here’s why.

Why Surgical Mesh Fails And What Happens When It Does

Polypropylene mesh, once inside the human body, doesn’t always stay where it was placed. Over time sometimes within months, sometimes over years, it can:

Shrink and contract, pulling on surrounding tissue and causing chronic, severe pelvic or abdominal pain that many patients describe as feeling like “razor blades” inside them.

Erode through tissue and organs, migrating into the bladder, bowel, vaginal wall, or surrounding structures. Mesh erosion is one of the most serious complications and often requires multiple corrective surgeries none of which are guaranteed to fully resolve the damage.

Cause chronic infection, because the woven structure of the mesh can harbor bacteria that antibiotics cannot reach. Patients can cycle through repeated infections for years without resolution as long as the mesh remains in place.

Trigger a chronic inflammatory response, where the body treats the mesh as a foreign invader, causing ongoing immune-system activation, pain, and progressive tissue damage.

Degrade over time, releasing microscopic particles into surrounding tissue as the polypropylene breaks down particles that have been found embedded in tissue far from the original implant site.

Fragment, with individual fibers breaking off and migrating to other parts of the body.

The consequences are life-altering: chronic pain that makes normal activity impossible, sexual dysfunction, painful intercourse, difficulty walking, recurrent infections, incontinence, organ perforations, and the profound psychological toll of a body that never feels right again.

The Transvaginal Mesh Catastrophe

The most extensively litigated mesh cases involve transvaginal mesh (TVM) mesh surgically implanted through the vagina to treat pelvic organ prolapse (POP) or stress urinary incontinence (SUI).

The FDA first warned about transvaginal mesh complications in 2008. It issued a much stronger safety communication in 2011, explicitly calling mesh complications “not rare.” By 2016, the FDA had reclassified surgical mesh for transvaginal POP repair as a Class III device its highest-risk category requiring manufacturers to conduct clinical studies to demonstrate safety and effectiveness.

In April 2019, the FDA ordered manufacturers to stop selling transvaginal mesh for pelvic organ prolapse repair entirely, concluding that they could not provide “reasonable assurance of safety and effectiveness.”

The companies that manufactured these devices Johnson & Johnson (Ethicon), C.R. Bard, Boston Scientific, Covidien, and others have paid out billions of dollars in settlements and verdicts. As of 2026, litigation continues, with new plaintiffs regularly qualifying to file claims.

If you received transvaginal mesh for any reason and have experienced pain, erosion, infection, organ damage, or other complications, you may have a valid legal claim even if your surgery was years ago. To understand whether you qualify, read our guide on how to know if you qualify for a mass tort claim.

Hernia Mesh: The Next Major Wave of Litigation

Hernia mesh litigation has exploded in recent years as patients who underwent hernia repairs with synthetic mesh, many of them years or even a decade ago began experiencing serious, progressive complications.

Common hernia mesh complications include:

Mesh migration from the original implant site
Bowel obstruction caused by adhesions to mesh
Mesh contraction causing chronic abdominal pain and a constant pulling sensation
Fistula formation (abnormal connections between organs)
Hernia recurrence despite the mesh
Infection that doesn’t resolve without complete mesh removal
Nerve entrapment causing radiating pain down the leg or into the groin

Products at the center of hernia mesh litigation include Atrium C-QUR mesh, Davol/Bard Composix Kugel Patch (recalled after reports of bowel perforations), Covidien Parietex mesh, and Ethicon Physiomesh recalled in 2016 due to significantly higher-than-expected complication rates.

Ethicon’s own internal data showed that Physiomesh had substantially higher rates of recurrence and reoperation compared to other hernia repair options data the company possessed but did not disclose to surgeons or patients before the device was pulled from the market.

If you had hernia repair surgery with mesh and have experienced complications especially if multiple surgeries have failed to resolve your symptoms your suffering may be the direct result of a defective product, not a failure of the surgery itself. Visit our Hernia Mesh Lawsuit page to learn more about your options.

Metal-on-Metal Hip Implants: When Your Replacement Joint Poisons You From the Inside

Hip replacement surgery is one of the most common orthopedic procedures in the United States, performed more than 450,000 times per year. For the vast majority of patients, it delivers meaningful relief from arthritis or injury and restores mobility.

But for hundreds of thousands of patients who received metal-on-metal (MoM) hip implants, the result has been something far darker: a condition called metallosis metal poisoning caused by the implant slowly grinding itself to pieces inside the body.

How Metal-on-Metal Hip Implants Work And Why They Fail

Traditional hip implants use a ceramic or polyethylene (plastic) bearing surface the component that moves when the joint moves. Metal-on-metal implants use a cobalt-chromium metal ball moving against a metal cup (acetabular component).

Manufacturers marketed MoM implants aggressively through the 2000s, claiming they were more durable, better suited for active patients, and less prone to wear than traditional designs. Patients were told these devices would last longer possibly a lifetime.

What they weren’t told was this: every time a metal-on-metal hip joint moves with every step, every shift, every turn the metal surfaces grind microscopically against each other, releasing cobalt and chromium ions into surrounding tissue and the bloodstream.

These metal ions are toxic. Over time, they cause:

Metallosis– a severe local tissue reaction in which metal debris triggers the death of soft tissue and bone around the implant. Surgeons who revise metal-on-metal implants frequently find the surrounding tissue has turned black and necrotic. The technical terms are ARMD (Adverse Reaction to Metal Debris) and ALVAL (Aseptic Lymphocyte-Dominated Vasculitis-Associated Lesions).

Pseudotumors– fluid-filled masses of necrotic tissue that form around the implant, pressing on nerves, blood vessels, and surrounding structures, causing severe pain and structural damage.

Bone destruction– the metal ions and the inflammatory response they trigger can eat away at the bone around the implant (osteolysis), sometimes making revision surgery far more complex and impossible to fully correct.

Systemic metal toxicity– cobalt and chromium are absorbed into the bloodstream and distributed throughout the body. Elevated cobalt levels have been linked to neurological effects (hearing loss, vision problems, cognitive changes), cardiac complications (cobalt-induced cardiomyopathy actual heart muscle damage), and thyroid dysfunction. These systemic effects can persist even after the implant is removed.

The Devices at the Center of the Litigation

DePuy ASR (Articular Surface Replacement): Manufactured by DePuy Orthopaedics (a Johnson & Johnson subsidiary), the ASR was recalled worldwide in August 2010 after the company’s own data showed a failure rate of approximately 13% within five years far exceeding acceptable standards. Subsequent independent analysis indicated the actual failure rate was even higher. DePuy has paid billions in settlements.

Stryker Rejuvenate and ABG II modular neck-stem implants: Recalled in July 2012 after reports of fretting and corrosion at the modular neck-stem junction a design feature unique to these implants that caused accelerated metal ion release. Stryker settled with tens of thousands of harmed patients.

Biomet M2a Magnum: Subject to significant litigation and multiple peer-reviewed studies demonstrating elevated metal ion levels and high revision rates in implanted patients.

Zimmer Durom Cup: Recalled after reports of premature loosening and failure, requiring painful revision surgery in large numbers of patients.

Smith & Nephew Birmingham Hip Resurfacing (BHR) and CONSERVE Plus: Part of ongoing metal-on-metal hip resurfacing litigation involving metallosis and systemic metal ion concerns.

The Hidden Danger: Symptoms That Mimic Everyday Conditions

One of the most insidious aspects of metal-on-metal hip implant failure is that early symptoms frequently mimic other, less serious conditions — leading patients to be misdiagnosed for months or years while internal damage continues to worsen.

Patients commonly report:

Gradually increasing hip or groin pain initially attributed to “normal aging” or post-surgical adjustment
Noise from the hip joint clicking, squeaking, grinding, or clunking
Swelling around the hip that comes and goes
Difficulty walking on uneven ground or navigating stairs
A feeling of instability or the hip “giving way” without warning
Unexplained fatigue, brain fog, cardiac symptoms, or hearing changes that are never connected to a hip implant

If you have a metal-on-metal hip implant even without severe current symptoms ask your doctor about cobalt and chromium blood ion testing and a metal artifact reduction sequence (MARS) MRI to check for ARMD or pseudotumors. Early detection dramatically improves revision surgery outcomes and legal claim strength.

If you’ve already undergone revision surgery to remove or replace a metal-on-metal implant, the surgery itself, the recovery, and all the harm caused in between may be the foundation of a significant legal claim.

Other Defective Medical Devices: The Problem Is Broader Than You Think

Surgical mesh and metal-on-metal hips represent the largest and most mature litigation categories, but defective medical device harm extends across many device types. Other implants and devices that have generated significant litigation and ongoing claims include:

Inferior Vena Cava (IVC) Filters

IVC filters are small, cage-like devices implanted in the inferior vena cava the large vein returning blood from the lower body to the heart to catch blood clots and prevent pulmonary embolism. They are commonly placed after surgery, trauma, or in patients who cannot take blood thinners.

The problem: many IVC filters were never designed for permanent implantation but were left in place long-term by physicians who either forgot to remove them or found they could no longer do so safely. Over time, the metal wires can fracture with broken fragments migrating to the heart, lungs, or other vessels. Filters have also been documented to tilt, migrate, and perforate the vena cava wall.

C.R. Bard and Cook Medical have faced enormous IVC filter litigation, with jury verdicts and settlements totaling hundreds of millions of dollars. Internal Bard documents revealed that the company was aware of fracture risks and continued marketing these devices without adequate patient warning.

Spinal Cord Stimulators and Implanted Spinal Devices

Spinal cord stimulators (SCS) are implanted devices that deliver electrical impulses to the spinal cord to manage chronic pain conditions including failed back surgery syndrome, complex regional pain syndrome (CRPS), and chronic radiculopathy.

When SCS devices malfunction, the consequences can be severe: leads that migrate and stimulate unintended areas, device failures requiring surgical revision, lead fractures, and infections that require complete device removal. Medtronic, Abbott (formerly St. Jude Medical), and Boston Scientific have all faced litigation related to SCS device failures and inadequate warnings about known failure modes.

Breast Implants and BIA-ALCL

Textured breast implants particularly those manufactured by Allergan (now owned by AbbVie) have been linked to a rare but serious cancer called Breast Implant-Associated Anaplastic Large Cell Lymphoma (BIA-ALCL). Allergan recalled its BIOCELL textured implants worldwide in July 2019 after the FDA identified a statistical association that the company had data on for years.

BIA-ALCL can appear anywhere from one to over twenty years after implantation. Watch for persistent fluid accumulation around the implant, new swelling, or a palpable lump and report any such symptoms to your physician immediately. Women diagnosed with BIA-ALCL who had Allergan BIOCELL implants may have valid legal claims.

Power Morcellators and Uterine Cancer Spread

Laparoscopic power morcellators devices used to cut up uterine tissue during minimally invasive hysterectomy or myomectomy were found to spread undetected uterine cancer (particularly uterine sarcoma) throughout the abdominal cavity during surgery, upstaging patients from a treatable condition to a potentially terminal one.

The FDA issued a strong safety warning against their use in most women in 2014. Johnson & Johnson recalled its morcellators. Women who underwent morcellator-assisted surgery and received subsequent cancer diagnoses may have viable claims against the manufacturers.

“The FDA Approved It” Why That’s Not the Protection You Think It Is

Perhaps the most persistent myth that prevents harmed patients from pursuing justice is this: “The FDA approved the device. That means it must have been safe. And if it was approved, I can’t sue anyone.”

Both assumptions are wrong and understanding why can be the difference between pursuing justice and walking away from compensation you’re entitled to.

FDA approval or clearance does not mean a device is safe. The 510(k) pathway allows devices to reach patients without clinical testing, simply by demonstrating “substantial equivalence” to prior devices. Even devices that went through the more rigorous PMA (Premarket Approval) process have been found dangerous after reaching the market. The FDA has acknowledged publicly that post-market surveillance tracking what actually happens to patients after implantation has historically been inadequate.

Federal preemption in medical device cases is real but narrow. While PMA-approved devices carry some federal preemption protections, there are critical and important exceptions:

Manufacturing defects that deviate from approved specifications are not preempted
Failure to warn claims, particularly involving off-label uses promoted by the manufacturer, are not preempted
Parallel claims where a plaintiff alleges the manufacturer violated federal law itself survive preemption under the Supreme Court’s Riegel v. Medtronic framework
510(k)-cleared devices receive no federal preemption whatsoever meaning design defect, manufacturing defect, and failure-to-warn claims all proceed normally in state court

This last point is critically important for mesh cases: most surgical mesh products were cleared through the 510(k) pathway, not PMA. Federal preemption does not apply. Patients retain the full range of state-law product liability claims.

An experienced medical device attorney will analyze the regulatory history of your specific device to identify exactly which legal theories are available and which are most likely to succeed.

For a deeper look at how manufacturers have been held accountable even with FDA clearance, see our complete guide on how Legal Claim Counsel helps victims in medical device lawsuits.

The Pain No One Talks About: Living With a Defective Implant

The legal case for medical device compensation is built on documented harm medical records, imaging, surgical reports, blood tests. But anyone who has actually lived with a failing implant knows that the documented harm doesn’t begin to capture the full reality of what it means to have a foreign object damaging your body from the inside.

The chronic pain that wakes you at 3 a.m. and doesn’t go away.

The doctor’s appointments that pile up, each one less productive than the last, each one another half-day taken from work, from family, from life.

The embarrassment of incontinence that changed how you dress, how you socialize, whether you feel safe leaving the house.

The fear that another surgery the third, the fourth will leave you worse off than before.

The grief of losing a version of yourself that existed before the device: the person who walked without wincing, who played with grandchildren on the floor, for whom intimacy was possible.

The financial devastation: the medical bills, the lost wages, the medications that treat symptoms caused by a device that was supposed to fix something, not create new problems.

None of this was your fault. You made a reasonable medical decision based on information you were given information that was incomplete, misleading, or outright false. The companies that made these devices knew about the risks you weren’t told. In many cases, they hid that information for years while continuing to implant their products in patients.

Compensation in medical device cases can cover: past and future medical expenses, lost wages and earning capacity, pain and suffering, loss of consortium (harm to your marriage or relationship), and in cases of egregious corporate misconduct punitive damages. To understand how compensation is calculated in cases like yours, read our guide on how compensation works in mass tort and product liability cases.

Statutes of Limitations in Medical Device Cases: Do You Still Have Time?

This is the question everyone asks first and the answer is more nuanced than a simple yes or no.

As with pharmaceutical mass tort claims, the statute of limitations in medical device cases is critically shaped by the discovery rule: the clock generally begins running not when you received the implant, but when you knew or reasonably should have known that your injury was caused by the device.

For medical device cases, this matters enormously because:

Failure is often gradual and initially mistaken for normal post-surgical adjustment. Many patients spend one to three years being told their pain or complications are a normal part of recovery, delaying discovery of the real cause.

The causal link to the device may not be confirmed until revision surgery. Many patients don’t receive a definitive diagnosis of mesh erosion, metallosis, or device failure until a surgeon opens them up and sees it directly. That surgical diagnosis date is typically when the discovery clock starts.

Recall notices and scientific literature may be the triggering event. If you didn’t know your device model had a known failure problem until you read about it online or heard from an attorney, that discovery date may be what courts look to for the beginning of the limitations period.

Fraudulent concealment where manufacturers knew about failure rates and concealed the data can toll (pause) the statute of limitations entirely for the period during which the truth was hidden. This has been argued successfully in multiple major device litigations.

State statutes of limitations for product liability claims range from 2 to 6 years, with most states falling in the 2–4 year range. Some states also have statutes of repose absolute filing deadlines that apply regardless of discovery.

The only way to know with certainty whether your claim is still timely is to speak with an experienced medical device attorney who can evaluate your specific device, your state’s rules, your timeline, and all applicable tolling doctrines. Do not assume it’s too late. But also do not wait every day that passes is a day closer to a real deadline. To understand more about how timing works in mass tort cases, read our full guide on what happens after you submit a mass tort claim.

What to Do Right Now If You Think You’ve Been Harmed by a Defective Device

If you believe a surgical implant or medical device has caused you harm, here are the five steps that matter most:

1. Get an Independent Medical Opinion

If your current surgeon or doctor is the one who implanted the device, they may be reluctant to attribute your complications to it whether out of professional loyalty, liability concern, or genuine uncertainty. Seek an independent evaluation from a specialist experienced with device-related complications and who has no relationship with the original procedure or manufacturer.

2. Request All of Your Medical Records

Get every record related to your implant: the operative report from the original surgery, device implant logs (which identify the exact make, model, and lot number of the device), all imaging, all follow-up visit notes, and all records from subsequent procedures. These records are the foundation of your legal case.

Request the device implant sticker from your surgical records. Every implanted device comes with a product sticker affixed to your chart — it contains the manufacturer name, model, and catalog/lot number. This information is essential to identifying whether your device is part of existing litigation.

3. Preserve the Device If It Is Removed

If you undergo revision surgery and the device is removed, ask specifically that it be preserved as potential legal evidence. Medical facilities routinely dispose of explanted devices as biological waste unless you explicitly request otherwise. An explanted device can be one of the most powerful pieces of evidence in your case. Your attorney can arrange for proper documentation and storage.

4. Document Your Symptoms and Financial Losses

Keep a daily pain and symptom journal. Photograph visible swelling, redness, or scarring. Save all medical bills and insurance statements. Track every day you couldn’t work, couldn’t care for your family, or couldn’t participate in activities you once enjoyed. This documentation directly supports and quantifies your compensation claims.

5. Contact an Experienced Medical Device Attorney Without Delay

This step cannot wait. An attorney will evaluate your claim at no cost, advise you on the specific statute of limitations applicable to your situation, identify whether your device model is part of existing MDL litigation, and begin the record collection process that forms the evidentiary foundation for your case.

Medical device litigation is technically complex, manufacturer-specific, and continuously evolving. You need counsel with specific experience in this area. To understand the top mistakes victims make when filing mass tort claims and how to avoid them read our dedicated guide before your first attorney call.

Frequently Asked Questions

1. My implant hasn’t been recalled. Can I still file a lawsuit?

Yes, and this is one of the most important things to understand about medical device litigation. A recall is not a prerequisite for a valid legal claim. What matters is whether the device was defective in its design, its manufacturing, or in the warnings (or lack thereof) provided to doctors and patients. Many patients have obtained significant compensation for devices that were never formally recalled. The absence of a recall simply means the FDA hasn’t acted yet it does not mean the device was safe or that you have no claim.

2. My surgery was years ago. Is it too late to file a claim?

Not necessarily, and you should never assume it is without speaking to an attorney first. In most states, the statute of limitations clock in medical device cases begins running not when you had the surgery, but when you knew or should have known that the device caused your injury. This is called the discovery rule, and it has preserved the rights of thousands of patients who were harmed years sometimes over a decade before they connected their symptoms to their implant. An attorney can assess your specific timeline, your state’s laws, and all applicable tolling doctrines before advising you on whether your claim is still alive.

3. I’ve already had revision surgery. Does that disqualify me from filing a claim?

Not at all, and in many cases, it actually strengthens your claim. The need for revision surgery is itself direct evidence of the original device’s failure. Every complication you suffered, every procedure you underwent, every day of recovery you endured is documented harm that adds to the compensation you may be entitled to. Some patients have had two, three, or even four revision surgeries as a result of a single defective implant each surgery adding to both the documented harm and the potential value of their claim.

4. What if I’m still experiencing pain even after the device was removed?

This is unfortunately common and legally very significant. If your symptoms persist after explanation, it demonstrates that the device caused permanent harm rather than temporary injury. Permanent harm means permanent entitlement to compensation: future medical expenses, ongoing pain and suffering, reduced earning capacity, and the lasting impact on your quality of life. Courts and settlement administrators weigh permanence of injury heavily when determining compensation, and persistent post-explanation symptoms are among the strongest indicators of serious, lasting damage.

5. What does it cost to pursue a medical device lawsuit?

Nothing upfront and nothing at all if we don’t win your case. At Legal Claim Counsel, we handle all medical device claims on a 100% contingency fee basis. There are no retainer fees, no hourly charges, and no costs to you if the case is unsuccessful. The contingency model exists for exactly this reason: so that financial barriers never stand between an injured patient and access to justice. The only time any fee is collected is when we successfully recover compensation for you and even then, it comes from the recovery itself, not your pocket.

How Legal Claim Counsel Can Help You

At Legal Claim Counsel, we have helped clients across all 50 states navigate medical device litigation from the initial free case evaluation through settlement or trial. We understand the specific legal landscape for mesh, hip implant, IVC filter, and other device claims, including the regulatory history of individual devices, the applicable statutes of limitations in every state, and the litigation strategies that maximize recovery for our clients.

What you get when you contact us:

✓ Free, confidential case review – no cost, no pressure, no commitment
✓ No upfront fees– 100% contingency, you pay only if we win
✓ Nationwide representation– we handle cases in every state
✓ Dedicated medical device litigation team– not a general personal injury firm
✓ Transparent communication– you’ll always know where your case stands and why
✓ Complete record collection support– we handle the paperwork so you can focus on healing

We currently handle claims involving:

The Device Failed You. Now It’s Time for the Law to Work for You.

You underwent surgery in good faith. You trusted that the device implanted in your body was safe, tested, and worth the risk. You trusted your surgeon, your hospital, and the company whose name was printed on the package.

You were let down by a system that prioritized speed to market over patient safety and by companies that knew, in many cases from their own internal data, that their products were failing at rates they deemed acceptable. They made a calculation: the cost of litigation was manageable. The suffering of patients like you was a line item in a budget projection.

That calculation changes when patients fight back.

Every claim filed holds these companies accountable. Every dollar of compensation recovered represents formal acknowledgment that what happened to you was not your fault, was not inevitable, and was not something you simply have to live with.

You deserve to know where you stand. And the only way to find that out is to ask.

Contact Legal Claim Counsel now for your free, confidential case evaluation →

Our team is ready to listen, review your case honestly, and tell you without pressure or obligation whether you have a claim worth pursuing and exactly how to pursue it.

The device failed you.
The company knew more than they told you.
Now it’s time to find out if justice is still within reach.

Legal Disclaimer

This content is provided for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Reading this article does not create an attorney-client relationship. Statutes of limitations, product liability laws, and preemption doctrines vary by state, device type, and individual circumstance. For specific legal advice about your situation, please contact our office for a free, confidential consultation.

Related Articles:

Tags: Surgical Mesh Lawsuit, Hip Implant Recall, Defective Medical Device, Hernia Mesh Complications, Metal-on-Metal Hip, Transvaginal Mesh, Medical Device Litigation, Product Liability, Mass Tort Claims, Metallosis, IVC Filter Lawsuit, 510k FDA Loophole, Free Case Review, Legal Claim Counsel