Johnson & Johnson is facing a new Prolene mesh lawsuit from a New York woman claiming serious hernia mesh complications. The Prolene mesh lawsuit alleges Johnson & Johnson either knew or should have known of their product’s defective nature, which ultimately caused the claimant to suffer avoidable hernia mesh injuries.

Plaintiff Eda G. had been treated with the Prolene mesh product on Sept. 4, 2014, after suffering serious hernia related injuries. However not long after the hernia mesh product was implanted, Eda had suffered long term complications and had to undergo revision surgery.

According to her Prolene mesh lawsuit, Eda had to have the Prolene mesh replaced and had to contend with an intense recovery process. Due to the chronic hernia mesh complications, Eda had to undergo a second revision surgery on Aug. 27, 2015 to repair damage from abdominal bulging and intense incisional hernia repair.

According to the Prolene mesh lawsuit, Eda had suffered incisional damage and adhesions due to the allegedly defective hernia mesh product.

Overview of Prolene Mesh Lawsuit

Eda opted to file the Prolene mesh lawsuit after learning Johnson & Johnson had recalled one of their hernia mesh products from the market in May 2016. The company issued the recall after discovering the Physiomesh Flexible Composite Mesh had produced higher revision surgery rates than expected.

Many patients were forced to undergo revision surgery to the serious hernia mesh complications indicated in injury reports including pain, swelling, adhesion, obstructions, mesh migration, bacterial infections, and hernia formation recurrence.

After discovering the full extent of the side effects Eda experienced, she filed the Prolene mesh lawsuit against the company for failing to warn her against these possibilities. Eda’s injuries mentioned in her Prolene mesh lawsuit included muscle loss, weight gain, chronic stomach pain, damaged bowl function, and movement difficulties.

Eda says she now uses a cane to walk, and will most likely have bowel movement difficulties for the rest of her life. At all times relevant, Eda says she used the hernia mesh product for its intended purpose and did not deviate from physician’s advice.

Eda had opted for the Prolene hernia mesh product after reviewing Johnson & Johnson marketing materials. She complains the marketing materials had focused on the product’s benefits and did not sufficiently go over potential side effects.

Hernia mesh has been used for over 50 years for hernia repair, with different manufacturing companies competing in the market space. It has been alleged some hernia mesh products are inferior quality, which has resulted in many patients suffering complications and had a need to undergo revision surgeries.

It is important to note that revision surgery is considered riskier than the initial hernia mesh surgery, due to higher risk of infection. Even though hernia mesh complications can be potentially devastating to patients, Johnson & Johnson allegedly failed to warn the public against these problems in a timely manner.

Eda states that she never would have opted for the Prolene mesh product if she had known of the potential hernia mesh complications. Eda is seeking damages for failure to warn, among other claims.

This Prolene Mesh Lawsuit is Case No. 1:17-cv-04406, in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York.