Plaintiff Larry S., having suffered hernia mesh removal problems, filed a lawsuit in U.S. District Court, District of South Carolina, on July 20, 2017 against Johnson and Johnson Inc. and its subsidiary, Ethicon Inc.

The defendants in this case are both incorporated in the State of New Jersey where they are headquartered. Physiomesh, the hernia mesh product in question, was researched, tested, made, and promoted by Ethicon, a division of Johnson and Johnson Inc.

The plaintiff, Larry S., says he was implanted with Physiomesh in December of 2013 at Palmetto Health in Columbia, S.C. Less than three years later, in August of 2016, he had to undergo hernia mesh removalsurgery at the same hospital to eliminate the infected mesh from his body.

The plaintiff underwent an exploratory laparotomy that was invasive and risky. He alleges he developed cellulitis in his abdominal wall because of the infection caused by the Physiomesh product.

Hernia Mesh Removal Problems Related to Design

According to the legal documentation, Physiomesh as designed is different from other hernia mesh repair products on the market today. It has five sandwiched layers. The base layer is a polypropylene mesh which is covered on both sides by polydioxanone film. On both sides of this is layered poliglecaprone-25 film.

The defendants advertised and promoted this unique layering design as ideal in the medical quest to minimize adhesions and swelling. It was also clearly stated that such a design would assist the body in absorbing the mesh over time.

According to the narrative presenting in the lawsuit, the opposite of what was promoted occurred in Larry’s case. The body responded to the Physiomesh product as if it were a foreign object invading and the immune system caused the area to swell or the tissue to become fibrotic or otherwise unhealthy, leading to the necessary hernia mesh removal.

It was also not uncommon for the mesh to migrate from its original position which slowed down the healing process.

The lawsuit states that the multilayer nature of the Physiomesh product provides a surface for bacteria to reproduce. This bacterium becomes so numerous that the immune system is unable to flush it and it proliferates.

It also states that the hernia mesh was not resilient enough to withstand the pressures of the abdominal region and so the coating frequently became loosened, exposing the base layer. This layer was able to adhere to abdominal organs and cause damage to them with little difficulty.

Larry S. brings the following complaints against Johnson and Johnson and its subsidiary Ethicon: strict product liability – defective design, failure to warn; negligence; and punitive damages.

The plaintiff further requests a trial by jury. He asks for compensatory damages over the base of $75,000, punitive damages as the court sees fit, and a return of all court and attorney fees and costs.

He additionally asks for any other awards that seem just as the court reviews the circumstances of his physical pain and suffering caused by the hernia mesh removal, financial loss in terms of earnings and medical bills, and mental anguish.

The hernia mesh lawsuit is Larry S. v. Johnson & Johnson, et al., Case No. 1:17-md-02782-RWS in the U.S. District Court for the District of South Carolina, Columbia Division.