Surgical mesh is used to repair a ventral hernia, which is a bulge of tissues coming through an opening in a weakened area of the abdominal wall. When a hernia forms at the site of a past surgical incision, it can be referred to as an incisional hernia.

Plaintiff Mary M. underwent laparoscopic surgery to repair her incisional hernia in April 2012. Her surgeon implanted a Physiomesh product designed to strengthen the repair.

Now Mary and her husband have filed a Physiomesh lawsuit against Johnson & Johnson and its subsidiary Ethicon, makers of the faulty surgical mesh.

In January 2016, Mary underwent a second surgery to remove the mesh due to infection, recurrent hernia issues, and the removal of intestinal adhesions caused by the mesh failure.

The Physiomesh lawsuit contends that Mary “has suffered severe abdominal pain and complications caused by the defective Physiomesh that was implanted in her.”

Physiomesh Lawsuit Faults Johnson & Johnson, Ethicon

The mesh “was defectively designed and/or manufactured, was not reasonably safe for its intended use in hernia repair, and the risks of the design outweighed any potential benefits associated with the design,” claims the Physiomesh lawsuit.

Physiomesh is made of five layers. Two layers of polyglecaprone-25 (Monocryl) film cover two underlying layers of polydioxanone film, which coat a polypropylene mesh. Ethicon claimed the multi-layer coating was intended to prevent or reduce the possibilities of adhesions and inflammation.

The Physiomesh lawsuit argues that “the multi-layer coating prevented adequate incorporation of the mesh into the body and caused or contributed to an intense inflammatory and chronic foreign body response resulting in an adverse tissue reaction including migration and damage to surrounding tissue.”

The surgical mesh allegedly caused the formation of scar tissue and interfered with proper healing. The impermeable multi-layer coating prevented fluid from escaping, which led to infection.

“The multi-layer coating provides a breeding ground for bacteria in which the bacteria cannot be eliminated by the body’s immune response, which allows infection to proliferate,” claims the complaint.

In addition, Physiomesh allegedly was not able to withstand the natural, “normal abdominal forces, which resulted in recurrent hernia formation and/or rupture and deformation of the mesh itself.”

Because of the polypropylene material’s weakness, the device was apt to rupture or become deformed, adding risk of a hernia that it was designed to treat.

Over time, the multi-layer coating of Physiomesh degrades. The exposed polypropylene mesh becomes adjoined to nearby tissue and can become adhered to internal organs such as the intestines. Bowel perforation or bowel strangulation are possible as well.

The Physiomesh lawsuit alleges Mary has suffered from all of these design defects and was never warned of the potential dangerous nature of the product. Johnson & Johnson and Ethicon “knew or should have known” of the potential problems associated with Physiomesh before releasing the product on the market.

The Physiomesh Lawsuit is Case No. 3:17-cv-00516-DRH-DGW in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Illinois.