Breast Implant Failures and Lawsuits

Recent Breast Implants News & Information

Breast implants are advertised as safe and permanent — but the reality is they are NOT lifetime devices. Nearly all of them will eventually rupture and leak. Billions of dollars have been paid out through hundreds of thousands of cases in which women who got sick from breast implants. Class actions are continuing on and more settlements keep occurring with no end in sight.

Call for help

Device Facts

There are many reasons why people choose to have breast implants, including altering their shape, increasing the size of their breasts, or making them appear even. Other women choose them for breast reconstruction after a mastectomy. Breast augmentation surgeries usually take between 60 and 90 minutes and are carried out with the person under general anesthesia. A surgeon will cut the skin below the breast or at the bottom of the areola, dissect out a pocket under the breast or in the armpit, and position the implant behind or in front of the chest muscle. The method used depends on a person’s body type, as well as the type and size of the implant.

Types of Breast Implants

• Silicone Breast Implants

Silicone implants are silicone shells filled with liquid silicone or a thicker gel with “gummy bear” consistency. Many women say that silicone implants feel a bit more like natural breast tissue. If the implant ruptures, the gel may remain within the implant shell, with the implant remaining inflated. The gel will leak but a person may not be aware of the rupture. The FDA requires that women be at least 22 years to have breast augmentation with silicone implants.

• Saline Breast Implants

These implants contain sterile salt water. If the shell ruptures, the implant will collapse and the body will naturally absorb and expel the saline substance. Structured saline breast implants are filled with salt water and contain an inner structure designed to create a more natural feel. Saline breast implants are approved for women at least 18 years old.

Textured vs. Smooth Implants

The process of breast augmentation also includes a number of other options beyond just saline versus silicone inner material. Another major option is choosing textured or smooth implants. Both of these are available for silicone or saline material, but only textured implants can be used for teardrop-shaped, silicone-filled implants. If a patient is seeking to have a smooth and round breast, then only saline-filled implants are available. However, both textured and smooth implants have an outer silicone rubber shell.

In other words, if you decide to have a silicone gel implant that is teardrop-shaped, then your implants will by default have to be textured. If you would rather have round implants filled with silicone gel (the most common type of breast implant in the world today), then you have the option of choosing between a smooth or a textured surface. Remember that natural breasts are not perfectly round; they retain a teardrop-shape, which can only be approximated by using textured implants.

Textured implants have an irregular and rougher surface that is similar to rubbery and soft sandpaper. By virtue of having this texture, these types of implants adhere to the surrounding chest tissue in order to keep them from moving within the sack that forms around the implant (known as the capsule). Smooth implants, on the other hand, have a smooth outer surface that is slippery and shiny, thereby allowing them to move freely in the capsule.  This has the advantage of simulating the motion, feel, and behavior of natural breasts, but may result in potentially serious and unsightly “implant displacement,” including:

1. Bottoming out – whereby the implant falls with the force of gravity and results in a misshapen breast with a significantly larger or bulbous bottom
2. Lateral drift – whereby the implant drifts side-to-side and results in a misshapen breast with a significantly larger or bulbous side

These types of implant displacement do not occur with textured implants as their consistency and surface create natural friction within the capsule tissue and prevent them from moving about freely.

Depending on what you hope to gain from your breast augmentation and specific considerations about your body type and overall health, either textured or smooth breast implants may be ideal for your particular situation. This should be discussed with your plastic surgeon, and they can adequately counsel you on the details of your implants, including:

1. Substance - silicone versus saline
2. Shape - round versus teardrop
3. Surface - smooth versus textured  

Remember that textured implants can be either round or teardrop-shaped whereas smooth implants can only be round.  

Cohesive Versus Highly Cohesive Silicone Gel in Textured Implants

Because the earlier generations of silicone implants resulted in a slew of problems and potential health complications, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) imposed a moratorium on silicone implants between the years of 1992 and 2006. This moratorium was lifted when implant manufacturers developed new forms of the silicone gel that are known as either “cohesive” or “highly cohesive.”

Cohesive silicone gel basically means that the gel contained within the breast implant is in a semi-solid state and has chemical properties whereby its constituent molecules stick together. Compare this consistency to the earlier generations of silicone implants in which the gel contained therein was in a highly liquid state. Cohesive silicone implants most accurately approximate the feel of natural breast tissue. They are the “squishiest” and softest implants currently available, thereby making them the most popular implants with patients.

There is another form of silicone gel that can be used today known as “highly cohesive.” This gel is in a firmer solid state than cohesive gel. As mentioned above, these are colloquially known as “gummy bear” implants and will generally feel a little harder to the touch (though not unnaturally so). The benefit of gummy bear implants is that they retain their shape for longer than all the other kinds of implants.  

Furthermore, gummy bear implants are far less likely to rupture than any other type of implant (including both silicone gel and saline solution implants). The highest risk, though, is that if they do rupture, it may be harder to detect as the gel is so thick. Consequently, the FDA recommends regular screenings, including magnetic resonance imaging (MRI), visits three (3) years after implantation and then for every two (2) years thereafter.

When Are Textured Implants Necessary?

There are a handful of scenarios in which textured implants are necessary over smooth implants, including instances where the patient has a:

1. Convex breast bone (also known as pectus carinatum) – If the breast bone has this particular shape, then a smooth, frictionless implant may slide right down and out of the implantation area.
2. Concave breast bone (also known as pectus excavatum) – Conversely, if the breast bone has this opposite formation, then a smooth, frictionless implant may also slide down and out of the implantation area.
3. Sagging breast (also known as ptotic breast) – This is similar to the “bottoming out” displacement mentioned above, except that it is so severe that the smooth, frictionless implant may also slide down and out of the implantation area.
4. Implant replacement – In certain types of implant replacement, your plastic surgeon may recommend that you switch to a textured implant versus a smooth implant if your body shape has not been positively reacting to the smooth implant.

It is important to remember that no implant, be it silicone or saline, smooth or textured, is built to last a lifetime. The FDA recommends that implants be replaced every ten (10) years. If your plastic surgeon determines that your body may be better suited to a textured implant, they will likely recommend you make the switch during your next implant replacement procedure.

Common Breast Implant Complications

While most breast implant surgeries go smoothly, there are risks and complications associated with the procedure. There are times where the implants don’t work as planned and end up causing problems afterward. Complications that may require medical treatment or further surgery include:

• calcium deposits forming as hard lumps around the implant
• pain in the breast or nipple area
• aches and pain over the entire body
• breast skin tinning or shrinking
• skin breaking down to reveal the implant through the skin
• deflation due to a tear, cut, or leak, this can also lead to the formation of small lumps called silicone granulomas
• hair loss
• kidney disease syndrome
• asymmetric breast size
• the breast hardening and the scar tissue around the implant tightening
• breast tissue loses its substance (breast tissue atrophy)
• a deformity of the rib cage or chest wall
• a tear or hole forming in the implant
• swollen lymph nodes
• systemic sclerosis
• connective tissue disease
• skin irritations and rashes
• muscle pain and discomfort
• a buildup of fluid around the implant
• infections such as toxic shock syndrome
• skin or tissue death around the breast
• the implant or tissue becoming damaged
• inability to breastfeed
• chronic fatigue and weakness
• noticeable folds or creases in the implant
• burning, stinging pain
• lethargy

Physical Breakdowns and Ruptures

One of the main contributing factors to complications related to breast implants include changes of the breast implants and physical breakdowns. For instance, when the scar tissue that forms around the implant constricts the implant, a contracture of a breast implant may occur, causing pain and even distortion. This may be corrected by surgical release. Silicone breast implants are riskier because a rupture goes undetected and the implant tends to leak slowly over time. The solution can be absorbed by the body, leading to serious health complications. Rupture breast implants can be caused by defective designs or surgical errors on the part of the plastic surgeon. As such, extensive medical treatment is needed to truly understand where your injuries stemmed from.

Issues with Textured Implants

There are, however, several crucial issues to keep in mind when choosing textured implants:

1. Capsular contracture – This is a medical condition in which tough and fibrous scar tissue forms in the capsule that encapsulates the implant. Textured implants are frequently used to replace smooth implants that may have developed capsular contracture (also known as CC). When surgically replacing implants from a prior procedure, surgeons can potentially avoid another instance of capsular contracture by using textured implants, an implant that is smaller in size, or a different type of surgical incision. Furthermore, both round and teardrop-shaped textured implants cannot move freely within the capsule in the patient’s chest. The rough texture on the surface of these implants effectively keeps them in place, much like Velcro, and if they were to shift within the tissue, it would create a significantly distorted appearance. The companies that manufacture these implants claim that textured implants result in lower rates of capsular contracture.
2. Rippling – Textured implants have a higher risk of what is known as rippling. This is when the surface of the patient’s breasts exhibit wrinkles and ripples, giving them an unnatural and synthetic appearance. Although both smooth and textured implants can exhibit this rippling, it is less likely to show with smooth implants as they can always re-adjust themselves within the capsule.
3. Life span – Smooth implants tend to have a longer life span than textured implants. This is mainly due to the fact that their ability to move within the capsule gives them a degree of flexibility whereby they can adjust to outside pressures or changes in the surrounding tissue.
4. Leaking – Textured implants have a higher incidence of leaking than smooth implants. The research has not resulted in a definite conclusion as to why this is, but it seems to be due to the fact that their inflexibility may cause pressure to build up in certain situations and ultimately result in a rupture. The exception to this rule is gummy bear implants, which have the lowest likelihood of rupture.
5. Infection – A recent study from 2014 has indicated that textured implants likely have an increased risk of infection when compared to smooth implants. This increased likelihood of infection has been linked to the increased risk of rupture, leaking, and/or structural failure of the implant itself. It is also linked to the development of BIA-ALCL. Furthermore, the risk of infection is highest at the actual time of implantation and at the incision site, so it is absolutely crucial that you choose a board-certified plastic surgeon who has the knowledge, skill, and experience to avoid infection in your implants.

These issues can largely be avoided if you are considering getting textured implants. However, if you have suffered from any of these secondary, post-operative complications than you may be entitled to a settlement or some form of financial compensation for your pain, suffering, and/or loss. Retaining a legal firm with a background in handling these types of cases can help you seek out this form of recompense.

Deflation and/or Rupture of Textured Implants

A significant issue with textured, silicone gel-filled implants is deflation and/or rupture. This is a potentially serious complication that must be immediately assessed, diagnosed, and treated by your plastic surgeon. Signs of deflation and/or rupture include:

1. Decreased size of one or both breasts
2. Altered shape and/or uneven appearance of one or both breasts
3. Nodules (hard knots) forming in the soft tissue of one or both breasts
4. Pain and/or tenderness
5. Tingling
6. Swelling
7. Burning sensation
8. Numbness
9. Any other changes in sensation or feeling

If you have experienced an implant rupture and are exhibiting one or more of these symptoms, then you are suffering from what is known as “symptomatic rupture.” If this is the case, then you must see your plastic surgeon immediately in order to treat the condition properly.

There is also the possibility that you may experience an implant rupture without any of these symptoms. This is also known as a “silent rupture” and is equally serious to symptomatic rupture.

In either case, magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) will have to be used to analyze the soft tissue of the breast properly. The MRI machine in question will have to be specially outfitted with equipment to image the breasts properly and give your plastic surgeon an accurate image of what exactly is happening in the tissues.

There are a number of reasons that your textured implants may have ruptured, including:

1. Damage done by surgical instruments during the implantation
2. Capsular contracture
3. A closed capsulotomy (if the breast is manually squeezed to such a degree that the hard capsule breaks)
4. Physical stresses and/or trauma, including intense and excessive physical manipulation
5. Excessive compression or squeezing during a mammogram (a kind of imaging procedure to screen for breast cancer)
6. The use of a procedure known as trans-umbilical breast augmentation (also referred to as TUBA) in which the breast implants are inserted via an incision at the navel/belly button
7. Injury and/or blunt-force trauma to the breast
8. Regular aging and/or deterioration of the implant
9. In rare instances, a rupture may occur for unexplained/unknown reasons

If a rupture of the textured implant has occurred, then your plastic surgeon will likely recommend for the swift removal of the implant. This is true even if the silicone gel is still encapsulated and enclosed within the scar tissue capsule because it may still leak into the surrounding tissues.

History of Silicone Breast Implants

Silicone breast implants were first made available to the public in 1962. Soon after the introduction, plastic surgeons became aware of the risks and complications associated with the use of these implants. Defective breast implants are known to leak because of a defect in the outer layer or because of sudden trauma or impact to that area. While manufacturers of these implants have claimed there’s no risk from a ruptured or leaking silicone implant, they’ve been unable to produce scientific evidence to prove their claims. Rather, they basically refer injuries suffered by plaintiffs as “phantom risks” not backed by any scientific knowledge or proof. Following their introduction, the manufacture or marketing of breast implants was not governed by the FDA until the 1980s. Regulators had initially expressed concern over associated risks such as toxic exposure to silicone substances.

14-Year Ban for Silicone-Gel Breast Implants

This isn’t the first time that breast implants have been grabbing attention for dangerous side effects. In 1988, silicone breast implants were listed in Class III- the highest-risk category for medical devices. In 1992, Dow Corning released confidential memoranda acknowledging that the company was aware that silicone gel would seep out of the implants, causing serious health problems. An FDA study showed 69 percent of women with silicone-gel breast implants required additional surgery after experiencing a rupture. There were also fears about a possible connection to diseases such as lupus, arthritis, cancer, and other autoimmune diseases. Safety concerns increased as there were alarming cases of ruptures.

Women filed lawsuits against various manufacturers, claiming that the implants ruptured and released silicone, causing rheumatoid arthritis and cancer. They also reported years of pain, numbness, swelling, and other symptoms associated with the devices. Oozing silicone gel can move to other parts of the body, forming lumps. They can also cause infections and form scar tissues that can interfere with the shape of a breast. At the time, Dow Corning Corp. was one of the leading breast implants manufacturers. In 1984, Maria Stern won $1.5 million in punitive damages and $250 million in compensatory damages from Dow Corning after claiming that she got an autoimmune disease caused by silicone breast implants. At trial, Stern introduced the company’s internal documents as evidence to show that the company was aware of high rupture rate and silicone leakage. That was the first major lawsuit involving silicone breast implants. More than 170,000 lawsuits were filed against the company, which paid a $3.4 billion settlement to women who were sick from toxic breast implants, leaking silicone, and ruptured implants. By the end of 1992, Dow Corning and other implant manufacturers, including Bioplasty and Bristol-Myers had left the silicone breast implant business.

Manufacturers were required to provide the FDA with safety data on silicone implants. Since they were unable to, the FDA issued a 14-year ban of silicone implants for cosmetic surgery stating inadequate information to show the implants were safe and effective. In 2006, however, the 14-year virtual ban on these controversial medical devices was lifted. Manufacturers such as Allergan Inc. and Mentor Corp. (a subsidiary of Johnson & Johnson) were cleared to start selling the implants again. The FDA warned that women who had these implants must undergo repeated MRI exams to check for ruptured and leaking implants and that the changes made by the procedure cannot be undone. Arguably, this means that the FDA still acknowledges the risks of silicone breast implants. And even though the ban was lifted, breast implant lawsuits haven’t stopped because thousands of women continue to suffer as a result of defective breast implants.

Safety Studies Required by the FDA

After the 14-year ban was lifted in 2006, Mentor Worldwide became the first company authorized to sell silicone breast implants. The company was required to enroll and track 80,000 women for 10 years in 6 long-term safety studies. Within 3 years, Mentor reported that 79% of women who signed up at the beginning of the study “dropped out.” Due to the massive dropout rate, the data could not be used to determine the safety of breast implants. Allergan, on the other hand, “lost track” of 40% percent of women within 2 years of the 10-year study. Arguably, this could show that breast implant manufacturers have a vested interest in declaring the devices as safe when other data is increasingly showing that they are not safe.

The FDA Medical Device Reports

In March 2017, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) issued a safety alert update citing that it received 395 medical device reports of patients who developed blood cancer associated with breast implants. Nine of these women died from the disease known as breast implant-associated anaplastic large cell lymphoma. These cases involve both cosmetic and reconstructive surgery. A year later, in March 2018, the FDA reported that it was aware of 414 total cases of anaplastic large cell lymphoma.

According to the FDA, the cancer is not considered a breast cancer but a non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma, which affects the cells of the immune system. The disease is found in the fluid that leaks and accumulates around implants. BIA-ALCL is described as rare and typically (but not solely) associated with breast implants that have textured surfaces. Of the 359 cases the FDA knew about in 2017, 231 noted the type of implant. 203 cases involved textured surfaces and the other 28 cases involved breast implants with smooth surfaces. This data reflects a January 2017 study which found that textured breast implants were 67.6 times more likely to cause ALCL compared to incidences of breasts with no implants. Also, the ingredient of the implant does not seem to affect the rate of incidences. Of the 359 cases, 312 included the material where 126 were saline and 186 were silicone.

FDA First Noted Link between Breast Implants and BIA-ALCL in 2011

On February 6, 2019, the FDA released a press announcement with results from an updated analysis of BIA-ALCL, suggesting that as of September 2018, the disease had affected 457 women in the U.S., with 9 fatalities. The FDA first noted a potential link to ALCL in 2011 and was the first public health agency to communicate the risks of the disease, but at that point, no fatality reports had been submitted to the agency. There was also a lack of enough evidence to establish a solid connection.

Over the past seven years, that has changed as the agency received more reports of breast implant-associated anaplastic large cell lymphoma, some of them fatal. The cases continue to trickle in and are concerning enough that the FDA had to concur with the World Health Organization designation of BIA-ALCL as a T-cell lymphoma that can be caused by breast implants. The FDA also stated that it would continue to monitor medical device reports, review medical literature and data form the Anaplastic Large Cell Lymphoma Etiology and Epidemiology (PROFILE Registry) and the Patient Registry and Outcomes for Breast Implants, and to collaborate with health experts and regulators.

Link to Textured Implants

A study by researchers in Australia concluded that textured implants are up to 14 times more likely to cause cancer compared to women with smooth implants. According to the report, textured implants pose a higher risk because their surface presents bacteria with the most favorable area to grow to huge numbers if undetected. Textured breast implants can reduce the risk of a condition in which the scar tissue around the implant hardens and becomes painful. The report indicates that the surface of textured breast implants allows the tissue to grow around the spaces of the surface. According to the New York Times, one in 30,000 women with textured implants in the U.S. and Europe will develop BIA-ALCL. In December 2018, Allergan withdrew its Microcell and Biocell implants- which are significantly textured- from the market in Europe and Brazil, probably due to concerns about BIA-ALCL. In January of 2019 Allergan investors filed a class action lawsuit alleging the manufacturer concealed from the link between textured implants and ALCL.

Is the Market for Textured Implants Restricted?

Because of the link between textured implants and the development of BIA-ALCL, there has been an increase in investigations to determine the precise nature of this increased risk. Health regulators in North America (the United States and Canada) have not imposed any restrictions on textured implants, though they currently have multiple inquiries underway.

In April of 2019, French regulators banned polyurethane-filled and macro-textured implants, two types of textured implants that are linked to a higher risk of developing BIA-ALCL. This came after top manufacturer Allergan was banned from the Brazilian and European markets in December of 2018.

In February of 2018, the French government, following a large-scale health inquiry, recommended that all Allergan Biocell textured implants (one of the most popular brands) be permanently banned from European markets. They stopped short, however, of calling for a blanket ban on all textured implants.  

It is important to note that there is a certain amount of overlap between French regulators and the European Union (EU) government, though ultimately other member countries may choose to impose restrictions on textured implants based on their own health inquiries.

Do Textured Implants Really Help Avoid Capsular Contracture?

For years, the companies that produced breast implants have made claims that textured implants help prevent the development of capsular contracture. When silicone gel, textured implants were reintroduced following the end of the FDA-imposed moratorium in 2006, early data seemed to support this assertion.

Over the years, however, peer-reviewed medical journals have generally not been able to replicate these results, and most plastic surgeons question this claim. Nonetheless, implant manufacturers continue to release internal studies (also known as “white papers”) that still make this assertion. There is a limited amount of evidence that textured implants may result in a slightly lower likelihood of capsular contracture, though this is hotly contested at the moment. Most plastic surgeons agree that a large-scale study with a huge sample size will be necessary in order to evaluate these claims properly.

BIA-ALCL is a Rare Type of T-Cell Lymphoma

BIA-ALCL is a rare form of a T-cell lymphoma known as non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma. Lymphoma is a cancer of the blood. According to the Lymphoma Research Foundation, ALCL comprises 16 percent of all T-cell lymphomas and just one percent of non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma cases. The FDA says breast implant-associated anaplastic large cell lymphoma develops years after implant surgery, which may explain why it took several years for the FDA to establish a link. The median length of time for the development of this cancer is 7 years. Symptoms of BIA-ALCL may include:

• Fluid Buildup
• Pain
• Breast lump(s)
• Hardening of mass around the implants
• Swelling
• Asymmetry

According to the FDA, these symptoms often occur years after the procedure.

The ages of women who reported to the FDA ranges from 25 to 91. With regard to the treatment of ALCL, this form of cancer is curable with surgery alone if identified in the early stages and the disease is confined to a single lesion or area. FDA’s statement on BIA-ALCL says that most of the cases can be treated through the removal of the implant and surrounding tissue. Surgical excision or radiation therapy will result in remission in 95% of patients. If detected later and cancer has spread, chemotherapy may be necessary.

ALCL was first identified in 1997 and according to the WHO, cancer first appears as an accumulation of seroma fluid between the fibrous scar tissue and the implant. In most cases, however, the cancerous cells stay intact in the fluid and do not spread to the surrounding tissue. The WHO recommends the removal of the implant and the fibrous capsule around as a treatment option. However, the FDA does not recommend the removal of the implants if there are no symptoms and no evidence of fluid around them.

In a study conducted by researchers at the University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, reports show that women with breast implants are 400 percent more likely to have a stillborn child. Those with silicone implants are more likely to develop autoimmune disorders and rare diseases such as ALCL. These results contradict the conclusions of studies funded by manufacturers of breast implants but are consistent with numerous published studies by other organizations. They are also consistent with what thousands of women have reported.

Diagnosis involves draining some of the fluid that has accumulated around the implant and testing any substance that indicates the presence of lymphoma. There’s a risk of lymph nodes forming if the cells invade the surrounding tissue. Women are encouraged to consult a doctor immediately if they experience any of the symptoms mentioned above.

Defective Breast Implant Lawsuits

Breast implants were the source of numerous product liability lawsuits in the late 1980s and early 1990s. As more women came forward, the effects of the lawsuits spread quickly throughout the industry. In September 1993, defendants Bristol-Myers Squibb, Dow Corning, 3M, and Baxter International tentatively agreed to a $4.57 billion settlement that they would consolidate. But because of a high volume of class action plaintiffs, the settlement collapsed. After Dow Corning declared bankruptcy in 1995, the other manufacturers agreed on a settlement (3.4 billion) that was accepted by more than 90 percent of class action plaintiffs.

Most of the lawsuits centered on the allegation that the breast implants were prone tears, breaks, and leaks, which released extremely harmful silicone into the bloodstream and nearby tissue. These lawsuits also alleged that the plaintiffs suffered harm such as cancer and various autoimmune diseases caused by implants. Due to the flood of claims that manufacturers faced, most of them had to file bankruptcy. Product liability attorneys agree that the problem with the current product is pervasive and this means that there could be thousands of women who may be suffering harm. As a result, there could be more additional claims in the pipeline. Most lawsuits allege that manufacturers failed to warn patients about risks brought about by defective breast implants. Typically, lawsuits against breast implant manufacturers are going to include a breach of express and implied warranties, failure to warn, and negligence and strict liability. Some may even involve a claim of fraud.

In defective breast implant lawsuits, the plaintiff bears the burden of proof. For a claim of breach of express and implied warranties, the plaintiff will need to show and prove that the product did not conform to certain standards. For instance, if a breast implant becomes deformed or ruptures and leaks, the plaintiff may use that to show that the product failed to meet the standards and therefore the manufacturer breached its implied or express warranty.

A claim of failure to warn requires the plaintiff to show that the manufacturer knew or should have known about potential risks related to the breast implant and yet the manufacturer did not provide adequate warning to consumers. A plaintiff may prevail on a claim of fraud if she can be able to show that the manufacturer knew about the defect.

For a claim of strict liability, plaintiffs need only to show that the implant was sold in a dangerous condition. And while the manufacturer’s intent was to have the implant reach the consumer unaltered, the implant’s dangerous condition caused harm to the plaintiff.

How a Lawsuit Can Help

There are only a handful of manufacturers in the breast implant industry today. Also, there’s no one particular brand that currently associated with ALCL diagnoses. If you win your breast implant lawsuit, you’ll likely be awarded for emotional and financial damages you suffered. Common types of reimbursements and compensation from breast implant lawsuits include:

• Pain and suffering
• Medical bills
• Lost wages
• Cash awards
• Attorney fees
• Future expenses

Finding Help for a Breast Implant Lawsuit Attorney Near Me

Filing a lawsuit against a pharmaceutical giant is a big decision and one that requires extensive legal preparation. As the plaintiff in a breast implant lawsuit, you bear the burden of proof. This means that you’ll need to prove your case with documented facts. In most cases, this requires collecting your plastic surgery records, medical records, and any follow-up visits. There’s also the need to file court documents like a petition or complaint outlining your case for the court, plus a summon that needs to be served to the defendant.

Some plaintiffs try to handle their own cases and go against big breast implant manufacturers that have an army of highly experienced lawyers and enormous financial resources, only to be disappointed by the results. Serious-minded people who want big results must hire professional legal services.

If you or someone you know has been diagnosed with side effects of defective breast implants such as chronic breast pain, infection, or numbness, you could have a case for a lawsuit. Consumer Alert Now is currently helping individuals with breast implant induced injuries in all 50 states to find experienced attorneys to litigate their cases. We want justice for victims of corporate neglect and want to help connect them with someone who understands their pain and will work hard to get fair compensation for damages. Our legal guidance helps you understand if the breast implants affected you and how you can be compensated. For a free case consultation with Consumer Alert Now, please call us at 800-511-0747 or use our online contact form.