Pennsylvania plaintiff Arthur J. filed a power morcellation lawsuit against Johnson & Johnson’s subsidiary, Ethicon Inc., for the wrongful death of his wife, Jonel D.

Arthur claims in his power morcellation cancer lawsuit that as a direct result of using the Ethicon’s power morcellator device, a uterine sarcoma inside the Jonel had been ruptured and had allowed the spread of deadly cancer cells.

Jonel allegedly opted to use the power morcellator device because it has been advertised and proven to be less invasive than traditional hysterectomy procedures, as well as requiring less hospital recovery time. With these benefits, Jonel underwent her first complete robotic procedure on June 19, 2012, to remove unwanted uterine fibroids.

There were no ill side effects to this first surgery because her surgeon used an endoscopic bag to contain the removed tissue. In previous studies, surgeons who used these bags have had fewer complications and injury reports indicating the spread of cancer, because these bags are able to contain any potential sarcoma.

However, Jonel had not been aware of the cancer risk at the time of her first power morcellator surgery and had not been at the time of her second surgery either, according to the power morcellator lawsuit.

On Aug. 2, 2012, Jonel had once again gone under the power morcellator knife, for a complete lymphadenectomy where she had been under heavy medical observation and received cancer screening. It is important to note that an endoscopic bag was not reportedly used for this second surgery, the power morcellator lawsuit claims.

On Jan. 9, 2013, Jonel underwent a diagnostic laparoscopy procedure, where malignant cells akin to leiomyosarcoma, or uterine fibroid cancer, had been discovered. At this point, the disease had progressed to a latent stage, leaving treatment options minimal and life expectancy drastically shortened.

Jonel ultimately died on Feb. 6, 2013, according to the power morcellation lawsuit.

Arthur allegedly did not discover that his wife’s death could have been prevented or that the devices had a tendency to rupture uterine sarcomas, until a televised advertisement announced these complications in June 2014.

At no point before or after his wife’s surgeries or deaths, did the Ethicon inform the Arthur or Jonel of these possibilities and provided no surgical instructions to physicians, the morcellation lawsuit alleges. This discovery was allegedly not made until a date within the applicable statute of limitations for Arthur’s lawsuit.

Arthur’s power morcellation lawsuit states that Ethicon had the responsibility to warn his wife and other women of all potential risks associated with its power morcellator devices. The charges against Ethicon include: negligence, false advertising, concealing information, and misrepresenting a product.

This Power Morcellator Cancer Lawsuit is Arthur J. v. Ethicon Inc., Case No. 2:15-cv-00553-JHS, in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania.

Overview of Powered Morcellator Complications

Every year, it is estimated that 650,000 women will undergo a laparoscopic surgery to remove uterine fibroids in the United States. In the last few decades, women have opted for power morcellator devices to perform their hysterectomy procedures because of their ability to make accurate, delicate incisions in the surgical area, and removing the uterine fibroid with minimally invasive effort.

These devices work by removing the uterine fibroids in parts, because the tiny blades attached to the morcellators cut up the fibroid, allowing for easy removal. Unfortunately, it is this very mechanism that has caused so much controversy over power morcellators and has resulted in such morcellator lawsuits against manufacturing companies.

Medical experts explain that once these uterine fibroids are ruptured, any hidden uterine sarcoma cells would then be released inside the patient, allowing for the formation of uterine cancer. Surgeons have reported seeing better results when using the endoscopic sacs mentioned in the morcellation cancer lawsuit above, because it contains potentially cancerous cells.

It is important to note that most power morcellators were approved through the FDA’s 510(k) process, which allows the device to go to market without thorough preclinical studies. As long as a device or drug proves to work at similar efficiency to a similar product already on the market, then these products are eligible for this policy.