AJB Stevens Lawyers have filed Supreme Court Representative Proceedings (“class action”) against Boston Scientific Corporation and Boston Scientific Pty Ltd (“Boston Scientific”) for a large group of women who have suffered debilitating injuries caused by mesh implants distributed by Boston Scientific. Proceedings have been commenced in the Supreme Court of New South Wales.
AJB Stevens have alleged 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 action claims damages on behalf of women who have suffered harm from the devices after having one or more Boston Scientific implant, which form part of the class action.
The claim will be pursued 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. The claim will also involve allegations that Boston Scientific breached multiple provisions of the Australian Consumer Laws as the Boston Scientific Class Action device was not reasonably fit for its intended purpose.
AJB Stevens has also alleged 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 medical implants were not of merchantable quality and did not have an acceptable quality when being distributed.”
It will be alleged that Boston scientific and/or the supplier of the medical implants, 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.
These affected women 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.
