A Texas woman is adding her claim over an alleged vaginal mesh manufacturing defect to the Ethicon products liability litigation now proceeding in a federal court in West Virginia.

Plaintiff Mary B. claims she suffered complications after being implanted with the TVT-Secur transvaginal sling in April 2008.

Her claim will be one of the newest of about 23,000 similar claims in a multidistrict litigation, or MDL, overseen by U.S. District Judge Joseph R. Goodwin in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of West Virginia.

Claims in the MDL focus on complications allegedly suffered by women who were implanted with pelvic mesh products manufactured by Ethicon Inc., a subsidiary of Johnson & Johnson Co.

The plaintiffs attribute these complications to a vaginal mesh manufacturing defect and design flaws that they say makes the implants unsuitable for the use they were designed for.

These pelvic mesh products have their design origins in the mesh that surgeons used to repair abdominal hernias as far back as the 1950s.

Gynecological surgeons began using that mesh in the 1970s as a treatment for pelvic organ prolapse, a condition in which weakened muscles in the abdomen fail to support the adjacent organs, allowing them to descend into the vagina.

By the 1990s, manufacturers like Ethicon had begun making pelvic mesh products designed specifically for gynecological applications.

Vaginal Mesh Manufacturing Defect Allegations

Plaintiffs say that thanks to a vaginal mesh manufacturing defect, these products are prone to failing in a number of different ways. Several of the alleged defects are listed in the master long form complaint from the Ethicon MDL, some of which include:

• The mesh in these products tends to cause the growth of a scar plate, the plaintiffs say. This scar plate allegedly prevents tissue ingrowth and leads to contraction of the mesh material, erosion of the surrounding tissue, and device failure.
• The mesh itself is made of polypropylene, which the plaintiffs say can cause an exaggerated and destructive immune reaction.
• The insertion procedure requires a doctor to implant the products “blindly,” putting the patient at risk for damage to nearby nerves and organs.
• In some cases, the mesh may allegedly deform out of shape, either by stretching or shrinking, after being subject to prolonged tension inside the body.

Ethicon’s responsibility in the face of these possible complications was, at the very least, to disclose the supposed vaginal mesh manufacturing defect at issue, giving plaintiffs and their doctors proper warning about the associated risks.

Yet Ethicon allegedly did the opposite. Plaintiffs accuse the company of concealing material facts and omitting important information about these products, while at the same time distributing promotional materials that said these products were safe and effective treatments for pelvic organ prolapsed and stress urinary incontinence.

The plaintiffs said they relied on these positive representations by Ethicon when they chose to have their pelvic mesh products implanted.

As big as the Ethicon MDL is, it’s one of seven separate vaginal mesh manufacturing defect MDLs pending in the same court, each taking issue with different mesh products and manufacturers. All together, these MDLs are hosting a total of about 70,000 individual pelvic mesh lawsuits.

The Vaginal Mesh Manufacturing Defect Lawsuit is Case No. 2:16-cv-07815 and is filed within In Re: Ethicon Inc., Pelvic Repair System Products Liability Litigation, MDL No. 2327, in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of West Virginia, Charleston Division.