A new Ethicon hernia mesh lawsuit was filed on June 30, 2017 in U.S. District Court, Middle District of Florida, Jacksonville Division by a married couple, Sheri and Alfred J. The parent company of Ethicon, Johnson and Johnson Inc. is also a named defendant.

The product in question in this Ethicon hernia mesh lawsuit is the Physiomesh Flexible Composite hernia repair mesh. This hernia repair mesh has five layers which makes it unique in terms of hernia repair mesh in the marketplace.

According to the legal documentation, the mesh has two layers of poliglecaprone-25 which sandwich two layers of polydioxanone film which in turn sandwich a single layer of polypropylene mesh.

The defendants in this Ethicon hernia mesh lawsuit claimed through advertising and promotion that this multilayer coating would encourage eventual absorption by the body. They also claimed that its makeup would likely reduce swelling and discourage the development of adhesions or scar tissue that tends to glue and bind bowel and organs to each other.

Sheri and Alfred J., complainants in this Ethicon hernia mesh lawsuit, allege that quite the opposite is true.

The plaintiffs say the product in actual use provides a platform on which bacteria can grow and multiply, thereby encouraging infection and overwhelming the body’s immune system.

The immune system reacts to the Physiomesh as if it were a foreign body anyway, creating an atmosphere that allows for inflammation, a build-up of lymphatic fluid, and development of fibroid tumors around the implant site.

Ethicon Hernia Mesh Lawsuit Sparked by Physiomesh Failure

Sheri J. alleges she suffered from a large, repeat, abdominal hernia related to a previous surgery. She has had this hernia repaired twice with Physiomesh. The first surgery occurred on May 9, 2012 and involved removal of failed synthetic mesh and implantation of a 15 x 25 cm piece of Physiomesh.

The second surgery occurred six months later on Dec. 10, 2012 and involved having a 10 x 15 cm piece of Physiomesh inserted. Her presenting problems requiring the second operation were pain in the pelvic region, urgency and frequency of urination, and confirmed fistula.

According to the timeline presented in this Ethicon hernia mesh lawsuit, Sheri J. had to have part of the Physiomesh removed seven months later on July 17, 2013. She continues to have the original hernia reoccur and with its ongoing repair has come intense internal and external scar tissue development.

This will likely continue to require surgical intervention into the future and be the source of much pain, suffering, and financial liability in the form of medical bills and loss of income.

The plaintiffs bring the following counts against the defendants: strict product liability, design defect, failure to warn, negligence, loss of consortium by Alfred, and punitive damages.

They are asking for a trial by jury with favorable judgments offering compensation for financial losses, pain and suffering, court costs and attorney’s fees and punitive damages more than $75,000.

The Ethicon Hernia Mesh Lawsuit is Case No. 3:17-cv-00759-BJD-JRK, in the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Florida.