A new lawsuit alleging Ethicon hernia mesh failure was filed in U.S. District Court, Northern District of Georgia, Atlanta Division on March 21, 2018. Plaintiff Gary P. is holding Ethicon Inc. and the Johnson & Johnson Co. liable for Ethicon hernia mesh failure after implantation with the product on January 5, 2012.

Gary is a citizen and resident of the state of California and his surgery took place at Torrance Memorial Medical Center in Torrance, California. According to the short-form complaint, the implanting surgeon of record for the Ethicon hernia mesh was Dr. Raashan Ali-Jones.

The plaintiff is bringing the following counts forward from the Ethicon hernia mesh product liability long-form which is multidistrict litigation (MDL) consolidating all related legal complaints:

Count 1: Strict Product Liability—Defective Design; Count 2: Strict Product Liability—Failure to Warn; Count 3: Strict Product Liability—Manufacturing Defect; Count 4: Negligence; Count Six: Gross Negligence; Count 8: Punitive Damages; Count 9: Discovery Rule, Equitable Tolling/Estoppel.

Through his counsel, the plaintiff is asking for a jury trial on all counts and compensatory damages that reflect the mental and physical pain, permanent injuries sustained, and cost of medical care, lost wages and earning capacity. He requests that all costs of litigation including court, attorney, and miscellaneous fees be included.

Ethicon Hernia Mesh Composition and Alleged Problems

The Ethicon hernia mesh product known as “Physiomesh” is uniquely designed among products created for the same medical purpose with its five-layers. The core first layer is made of polypropylene mesh.

Sandwiching this polypropylene core on each side are two layers of polydioxanone film. The final two layers covering the sides of the polydioxanone film are made of poliglecaprone-25, also known as Monocryl film.

According to the narrative of the long-form MDL, this multi-layer design had numerous flaws when implanted into the body. Among them was difficulty in getting the mesh to incorporate into the body.

More typically, patients would report pain and inflammation upon implantation due to the body reacting to the mesh as if it were an invading foreign body. On occasion, the mesh would allegedly migrate and cause damage to surrounding tissue by causing adhesions—a type of gluing– or promoting the development of fibrotic growths.

Additionally, the five layers of the Physiomesh product purportedly allowed for the breeding of bacteria, promoting infection which the body has a hard time eliminating. The defendants are accused in the MDL of being negligent in allowing this product on the market with this lack of bio-compatibility.

Further, once it was on the commercial market, it allegedly should have been recalled when these adverse events started to occur. In other countries, Physiomesh was put under voluntary recall by the defendants through an urgent safety notice in May 2016. Domestically, however, they opted to remove it from the market without further comment or warning.

The Ethicon Hernia Mesh Lawsuit is Case No. 1:18-cv-01186-RWS in the U.S. District Court, Northern District of Georgia, Atlanta Division.