A Missouri woman joins thousands of others in filing an Ethicon Gynemesh lawsuit in federal court against the manufacturers and makers of the pelvic mesh product.

Plaintiff Martha L. files her Ethicon Gynemesh lawsuit demanding a trial by jury.

According to the Ethicon Gynemesh lawsuit, Martha was implanted with the pelvic mesh device on Aug. 14, 2013 at Barnes-Jewish Hospital in St. Louis.

It was implanted, Martha claims, to treat her urinary incontinence.

However, due to severe adverse side effects and complications, she says that she underwent revision surgery almost a week later, on Aug. 21, 2013.

Due to the pelvic mesh’s implantation, Martha alleges that she has “experienced significant mental and physical pain and suffering, has sustained permanent injury and permanent and substantial physical deformity and has suffered financial or economic loss, including, but not limited to, obligations for medical services and expenses.”

The Ethicon Gynemesh lawsuit was filed over multiple allegations including failure to warn, strict liability, negligence, negligent misrepresentation, negligent infliction of emotional distress, breach of express warranty, breach of implied warranty, violation of consumer protection laws, gross negligence, unjust enrichment, and punitive damages.

Overview: Ethicon Gynemesh Lawsuit

Thousands of consumers have filed lawsuits against manufacturers of hernia mesh and pelvic mesh products, like Ethicon and its parent company, Johnson & Johnson, due to severe side effects and complications suffered.

Ethicon’s Gynemesh product has caused patients to suffer multiple complications due to the product’s alleged biological incompatibility, including bowel obstruction, mesh migration, mesh shrinkage, oxidation, and high potential for breakage.

The complications and side effects suffered are the result of the human body’s inability to accept the hernia mesh, thus causing severe allergic reactions. One of the reasons for this includes the composition of the mesh which is made up of an Omega-3 polypropylene coating.

Although the purpose of the mesh coating is to help prevent the mesh device from attaching to the body’s tissues, this instead causes other complications.

Patients implanted with a hernia mesh device, such as Martha, have suffered excruciating adverse side effects such as discoloration, swelling, and tenderness surrounding the implant.

Other complications reported by patients have included inflammatory reactions, pain, failure to incorporate the mesh into the body, mesh folding or bunching up, hernia occurrence, and adhesions.

Ethicon Lawsuits

Lawsuits being filed against Ethicon accuse the company of failing to warn consumers about hernia mesh complications. They also accuse the company of putting a defective and ineffective device on the market and of negligence.

Of the thousands of lawsuits filed against hernia mesh manufacturers across the country there have been several notable verdicts and settlements.

In fact, companies have paid nearly $1.1 billion in hernia mesh settlements.

Eligible victims and consumers may file Ethicon Gynemesh lawsuits, joining others who may have also suffered severe adverse side effects and complications. This may help victims of defective hernia mesh products obtain damages and recoveries.

The Ethicon Gynemesh Lawsuit is Case No. 4:18-cv-01330, in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri.