First Jury Verdict Against Coloplast for NovaSilk Mesh: $2.5 Million for Virginia Redding

In December 2009, Virginia Redding underwent surgery to address pelvic organ prolapse and stress urinary incontinence. Her surgeon implanted two Coloplast devices: a Supris mid-urethral sling and a NovaSilk pelvic organ prolapse mesh. Both were made from polypropylene, a material Redding's legal team would later argue is biologically incompatible with human tissue and triggers a chronic inflammatory response when placed permanently inside the body.

Redding's recovery did not go as expected. She developed mesh erosion, vaginal infection and bleeding, bladder problems, and persistent pelvic pain. Only partial removal of the mesh proved possible, as the polypropylene had integrated into surrounding tissue. The complications were lasting.

The case was initially part of a pelvic mesh multidistrict litigation in West Virginia. After Redding rejected Coloplast's settlement offer, her case was transferred to the Middle District of Florida for a standalone trial in Orlando. The two-week trial pitted her attorneys from Wagstaff & Cartmell and the Maher Law Firm against Coloplast's defense team from King & Spalding.

The jury cleared Coloplast on the Supris sling, finding no design defect and no failure to warn as to that device. On the NovaSilk mesh, however, the verdict went fully against Coloplast. Jurors found the mesh had a design defect, that Coloplast had failed to adequately warn Redding's physician of its risks, that Coloplast made negligent misrepresentations about the product, and that the company had fraudulently concealed material information. On April 26, 2022, the jury awarded Redding $2.5 million.

Coloplast appealed to the Eleventh Circuit, raising a statute of limitations argument: the company contended that Redding knew or should have known about a compensable injury linked to its mesh before September 18, 2010, which would have placed her lawsuit outside Florida's four-year window. The Eleventh Circuit disagreed. In a June 20, 2024 opinion, the court held that post-surgical symptoms in the months after implant were not sufficiently distinct from ordinary recovery to have put Redding on notice of a products liability claim. The $2.5 million judgment was affirmed in full.