Ethicon faces a new defective hernia mesh lawsuit alleging that the company’s Physiomesh hernia repair mesh is defective and causes serious complications.

Plaintiff Sherry Lee S. and her husband Derrick S. recently filed a defective hernia mesh lawsuit against Ethicon Inc. and Johnson & Johnson, alleging that the Physiomesh hernia repair mesh is defective.

Sherry says she was implanted twice with the Physiomesh hernia mesh, first in October 2010 and again in June 2012. According to the defective hernia mesh lawsuit, Sherry then suffered from injury due to the mesh for which she had to seek extensive medical treatment.

In the defective hernia mesh lawsuit, Sherry claims that the Physiomesh product was defectively designed. The mesh has five layers: two layers of monocryl film, two layers of PDS film, and a polypropylene mesh. This design is allegedly not used in any other hernia repair product currently sold in the United States.

Manufacturers allegedly promoted their design by claiming that the multi-layer coating is intended to prevent adhesion and inflammation. However, the opposite is true, according to the defective hernia mesh lawsuit.

The coating of the mesh allegedly prevents the normal fluid drainage, leading to seroma formation and increasing the risk of infection. The defective hernia mesh lawsuit also claims that the coating is not biocompatible and is incapable of incorporating in the body.

Sherry Lee claims the defective design of the hernia mesh can allegedly cause chronic pain, hernia recurrence, foreign body response, rejection, infection, migration, scarification, improper wound healing, inflammation, adhesions, erosion, abscess, fistulas, seromas, nerve damage, and tissue death.

In May 2016, Ethicon voluntarily withdrew their Physiomesh products from the market, citing two international registries which showed that the hernia mesh was subject to higher recurrence and reoperation rates than other hernia repair products.

“However, in the United States, Defendants failed to issue a nationwide recall, opting instead to simply remove the product from the market and cease further sales within the United States,” the defective hernia mesh lawsuit states. “Despite its knowledge, Ethicon did not issue any warning, caution or instruction to hospitals, physicians or patients regarding the importance of monitoring for potential complications.”

Sherry argues that the Defendants had a duty to use their knowledge of Physiomesh complications to protect consumers and inform patients and physicians that further complications may occur. This action would have allegedly allowed patients and their doctors to monitor the status of their hernia repair and be prepared should further surgery be needed. The defective hernia mesh lawsuit claims that the lack of information means that patients have not received the monitoring they needed.

Sherry and Derrick accuse the manufacturers of strict product liability for defective design, strict product liability for failure to warn, strict product liability for manufacturing defect, negligence, gross negligence, loss of consortium, and violation of consumer protection laws.

The defective hernia mesh lawsuit seeks compensatory damages, restitution, disgorgement, court costs, and attorneys’ fees.

The Defective Hernia Mesh Lawsuit is Case No. 1:18-cv-02772-RWS and part of the Physiomesh MDL, In re: Ethicon Physiomesh Flexible Composite Hernia Mesh Products Liability Litigation, Case No. 1:17-md-02782-RWS, in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Georgia.