Plaintiff Tadd J. has filed a lawsuit in Arizona federal court and requests a demand for jury trial against Johnson & Johnson and Ethicon, Inc., for allegedly manufacturing and selling a defective hernia mesh product.

According to the abdominal hernia mesh lawsuit, the defendants had concealed and continue to conceal the defective nature of the products and its “unreasonably dangerous risks” from the plaintiff, the public, and medical community.

Moreover, Tadd maintains that because of the hernia mesh implantation, the plaintiff suffered “severe and permanent personal injuries, including hernia revision surgery or invasive medical treatment to remove or revise the defective device…”

The abdominal hernia mesh lawsuit also maintains that the plaintiff must continue rehabilitation, is likely to undergo additional surgeries, and will also need other future medical care.

Tadd is filing claims for damages resulting from: negligence; fraud; misrepresentation; breach of warranties; and violation of Arizona’s Consumer Fraud Act.

He is also seeking compensatory and punitive damages and monetary restitution, among other available remedies.

Ethicon Targeted in Abdominal Hernia Mesh Lawsuit

The manufacturers and makers of the hernia mesh, Johnson & Johnson and Ethicon, Inc., face the alleged accusations. Ethicon Inc., is a wholly owned subsidiary of Johnson & Johnson.

According to the abdominal hernia mesh lawsuit, the defendants are accused of inaccurately and falsely representing misleading information about the hernia mesh. Tadd alleges the hernia mesh is “cytotoxic, immunogenic, and not biocompatible, which causes or contributes to complications such as delayed wound healing, inflammation, foreign body response, rejection, infection, and other complications.”

The complaint maintains that the defendants had known of the cytotoxic and immunogenic adverse effects that may result before introducing the hernia mesh to the market.

According to the abdominal hernia mesh lawsuit, the multi-layer coating on the hernia mesh causes an intense inflammatory auto-immune response, which includes its migration and further damage to the surrounding tissue of the body.

Tadd says his own hernia mesh implantation failed, and the mesh allegedly did not perform as it was intended. The hernia mesh allegedly caused serious injury and further caused additional medical invasive treatment that would not have been required had the hernia mesh functioned as it was intended.

According to the abdominal hernia mesh lawsuit, in May 2016, the defendants had issued an “Urgent: Field Safety Notice.” It had issued this pertaining to the Physiomesh Flexible Composite Mesh, the same product inserted into the plaintiff. The notice was sent to hospitals and physicians outside the U.S. And the purpose of this notice was to advise the providers of a “voluntary product recall.”

In the U.S., however, the hernia mesh lawsuit claims the defendants “failed to issue a nationwide recall, opting instead to simply remove the product from shelves and cease further sales within the United States.”

The Abdominal Hernia Mesh Lawsuit is Case No. 2:17-cv-02508-DMF, in the U.S. District Court in and for the District of Arizona.