A Louisiana man has filed a hernia mesh lawsuit against Johnson & Johnson claiming he suffered from Ethicon Physiomesh problems that caused him pain and suffering.

Plaintiff John T. was implanted with a hernia mesh product made by Johnson & Johnson in April 2013 in Shreveport, Louisiana.

Later that year, in September 2013, John says he underwent an additional surgery to repair some Ethicon Physiomesh problemsthat he claims resulted from the original mesh device.

This second surgery was to repair the plaintiff’s incisional hernia and to remove the Ethicon Physiomesh product from his abdominal wall.

A third surgery was performed a few years later in January 2016. This surgery was an open revision surgery, according to this Ethicon Physiomesh problems lawsuit, and was performed because of complications from the alleged defective hernia mesh product.

During this surgery, the doctors found a recurrent ventral hernia as well as pain and adhesion complications. Adhesions are bands of scar tissue that can bind tissue or organs together.

Adhesions can occur after hernia surgery and can cause unsafe complications for the patient. In John’s case, one section of his bowel had attached itself dangerously to the hernia mesh.

John claims that because of his Ethicon Physiomesh problems, he has suffered and will continue to suffer from both physical injury and pain as well as mental anguish. He also claims that Johnson & Johnson is responsible for permanent and severe scarring and disfigurement as well medical bills and other expenses.

This Ethicon Physiomesh problems lawsuit alleges that, by design, this medical product is flawed and should never have been implanted in the plaintiff.

A hernia mesh device is composite mesh medical device that is used in the repair of hernias. It is affixed to the abdominal wall to strengthen the hernia repair and tissue is expected to grow around it.

John claims that there is a multi-layer coating on the hernia mesh device. Because of the outer coating, John and other patients have alleged that this is what has caused Ethicon Physiomesh problems. What was intended to help ward against adhesions actually causes them, plaintiffs claim.

These devices, the plaintiff claims, “contribute to an intense inflammatory and chronic foreign body response resulting in an adverse tissue reaction including migration and damage to surrounding tissue in the form of sclerotic, granulomatous and/or fibrotic tissue and improper healing.”

John brings forth claims that include defective design, failure to warn, negligence, breach of express warranty, breach of implied warranty, negligent misrepresentation, fraud, unjust enrichment, gross negligence and negligent infliction of emotional distress.

This Ethicon Physiomesh Problems Lawsuit is Case No. 5:17-cv-00702-SMH-MLH, in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana.