In the midst of the rising vaginal mesh complications, a Johnson & Johnson’s Ethicon subsidiary representative states that the mesh devices do deteriorate inside the body.

Ethicon’s representative told the West Virginia federal judge overseeing the multidistrict litigation (MDL), that he had seen the vaginal mesh side effects the patients described.

However, the patients are trying to exclude this testimony of Ethicon’s expert witness and polymer scientist, Dr. Stephen MacLean because his prior testimony had allegedly been “inconsistent with prior damaging testimony given by Ethicon’s corporate representative Dr. Thomas Barbolt.”

According to the filing, Dr. Barbolt had previously admitted the surface layer of Ethicon’s Prolene vaginal mesh products can crack, and the company had been aware of this defect several years before advertising them to doctors. In response, Ethicon had reportedly hired Dr. MacLean to argue against the testimony of Dr. Barbolt.

Therefore, the plaintiffs are arguing that Ethicon’s attempt to implement Dr. MacLean’s testimony against Dr. Barbolt’s statements, is “unbelievable” and “borderline frivolous.” Furthermore, Ethicon and Johnson & Johnson are liable the to the admissions made by their “corporate designee.”

Overview of Vaginal Mesh Litigation

There are approximately 23,000 vaginal mesh lawsuits are filed against Ethicon and Johnson & Johnson in the MDL, which alleges the vaginal mesh devices had caused serious injuries in patients.

These vaginal mesh complications could include: mesh tearing, erosion, infection, device failure, intense pain, and organ tearing.

These lawsuits claim that Ethicon and Johnson & Johnson were responsible for supplying inadequate safety warnings for the patients and their physicians. Vaginal mesh devices are typically implanted in women to treat either their stress urinary incontinence (SUI) and pelvic organ prolapse (POP).

Instead of adequately treating these personal medical conditions, numerous women had suffered adverse vaginal mesh side effects. There are so many of these vaginal mesh claims that seven separate MDLs have been formed, consisting of 70,000 cases all pending in West Virginia over the vaginal mesh complications reported.

The Fourth Circuit court had affirmed a lower court’s ruling in April 2016, which had ruled that a woman’s vaginal mesh lawsuit had to be barred because of the two year statute of limitations. The three judge panel had further said in an unpublished opinion, that plaintiff Brenda R.’s claims should have been filed by at least the end of 2007.

Due to Utah’s expiration date of the two year statute of limitations, Brenda’s vaginal mesh lawsuit was cut from the MDL after Boston Scientific Corporation had won summary judgment last year.

The Vaginal Mesh Lawsuit is In Re: Ethicon Inc. Pelvic Repair System Products Liability Litigation, Case No. 2:12-md-02327, in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of West Virginia.