In 2013, our client Rachel saw a consultant at the defendant trust for treatment of her urinary stress incontinence. She was advised that a tape procedure would assist and was listed for surgery in 6 months time. Rachel was then advised the procedure was simple and straightforward, and at no point was the word ‘mesh’ used.
Timeline of events
After the surgery, Rachel incontinence improved, but she started experiencing pain around her back, legs and pelvis and saw an osteopath at the end of 2013. When chatting to her osteopath, they thought the tape procedure sounded more like mesh and they had had another client with similar issues.
Later in 2017 Rachel saw her GP as she was experiencing an internal pulling feeling and red hot pain around her pubis. Rachel expressed her concerns over the mesh procedure being the cause of her symptoms. Her GP advised her there were no other mesh cases at the practice and referred her for scans and back to the consultant who had completed the mesh insertion.
Rachel saw the consultant in December 2017 following the scans. She had ongoing pelvic discomfort, but no explanation was given as to the cause of this. She felt dismissed by the consultant and found his manner aggressive and defensive when she queried if the mesh could be the cause.
Ongoing pain
Rachel continued to suffer with the pain, which affected her day to day life. She felt worried and not listened to and so decided to seek the opinion of a private gynaecologist. Following scans with this gynaecologists they explained to Rachel that the mesh had become embedded in her urethral muscle and this was the reason for her pelvic pain. Rachel was then referred to have the mesh removed in 2022.
Since having the mesh removed, Rachel is no longer disabled from the pain, although her incontinence is worse than before 2013.
How we helped Rachel’s medical negligence case
Rachel came to us for support. Independent medical experts advised on her case and we sent a Letter of Claim to the hospital trust in January 2024, with details of her case and that they failed to fully counsel Rachel on her options in 2013 to treat the incontinence, or explain the risks of the mesh procedure. Although the defendant denied the allegations, in October 2025 the case was settled out of court. Rachel received compensation to help with the impact on her life and the cost of her private treatment.
Comments from Rachel on her case
“I had a mesh fitted for stress incontinence in 2013. I was not aware it was a mesh until I found out a couple of years later. The surgeon informed me it was a tape, that it was 100% safe, and only one woman in 3000 he had operated on had had any side effects. I directly asked him if this tape could harm me in any way and the surgeon reported “absolutely not”. I was not given any alternative interventions or any information on risks of the procedure. I did not consent to having mesh and was wrongly consented. I felt I’d been lied to. I paid privately to have mesh removed. Being pain free after the removal surgery was incredible.
Dealing with the surgeon was very difficult for me; my surgeon was particularly misogynistic towards me, especially in front of my husband. I was gaslit, bullied, not believed and my pain blamed on a number of made-up conditions that I did not have.
I was very worried during my litigation journey that I might have to go to court, because he was a senior surgeon who had lied to me. Fortunately, I was believed and supported throughout by the Lime Solicitors team, and after three years I was able to walk away with compensation. I will be forever grateful to Lime for believing in me, encouraging and supporting me through this difficult time. Thank you Kate, Robert and Mr Irons the medical expert.”
