Johnson & Johnson has declined to further pursue claims of impropriety by law firms filing lawsuits against them. The decision to drop this investigation could pave the way for the massive pelvic mesh lawsuit against Ethicon to move forward.

Pelvic mesh is a kind of surgical implant used to support the uterus, bladder, and other pelvic organs when injury, disease, or damage weakens their normal supporting musculature.

Since pelvic mesh was based on existing medical technology in the form of surgical mesh, the makers of pelvic mesh, including Johnson & Johnson’s Ethicon unit, were able to bypass many steps of U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) testing through the controversial 501(k) program. However, pelvic mesh lawsuits have alleged that pelvic mesh is more dangerous than the standard treatments.

Several major medical companies released pelvic mesh in the early 2000s, including Ethicon. However, allegations have surfaced that pelvic mesh complications, including mesh pain, mesh erosion, and embedment are the result of the design of the mesh.

Recalls were issued across all brands of pelvic mesh due to these concerns. Additionally, this has lead to more than 70,000 pelvic mesh lawsuits against various pelvic mesh manufacturers.

So many pelvic mesh lawsuits have been filed that the legal system has had to resort to a process called a multidistrict litigation, or MDL. In MDLs, the court system coordinates similar cases together.

This is designed to help streamline the legal process for all parties involved. Since pelvic mesh lawsuits tend to make similar allegations and hinge on similar evidence, pelvic mesh lawsuits are well-suited for inclusion in a single MDL.

Several MDLs have been formed against various pelvic mesh manufacturers, with Ethicon facing 35,000 pelvic mesh lawsuits in their MDL, more than any other company. However, allegations of impropriety by the plaintiffs’ lawyers threatened to delay the Ethicon MDL.

On Jan. 14, lawyers from Ethicon/Johnson & Johnson filed a motion alleging that some entity was illegally fishing for potential pelvic mesh plaintiffs. In MDLs, individual cases retain a strong degree of autonomy, but they may require less work on the part of lawyer, meaning there’s a potential financial incentive for lawyers to try and get as many clients as possible for pelvic mesh lawsuits.

However, the types of calls allegedly being made would have been illegal, if everything in the motion from Ethicon was true.

According to Ethicon, someone was calling various women who had pelvic mesh surgery. According to allegations from Ethicon’s lawyers, the caller had medical knowledge — or was skillfully fishing for it — and told the women that they could be entitled to $40,000 in compensation. If true, this could represent major ethics violations.

However, on Jan. 22, the plaintiffs filed their own motion. In this, lawyers for alleged victims of pelvic mesh complications asserted that they were not making these calls. The motion from the plaintiffs further alleged that Ethicon’s allegations were a tactic to delay the MDL by raising a specious issue.

In a Feb. 10 motion, Ethicon’s legal team opted to withdraw their earlier motion making the accusations about mystery callers trawling for pelvic mesh lawsuits. The motion to withdraw this claim offered no comment or explanation for the withdrawal.