In a recent vaginal mesh trial, plaintiffs argued why Johnson & Johnson should be held responsible for the numerous injuries women have suffered.

A Pennsylvania state jury heard arguments from a woman alleging serious vaginal mesh complications after having it implanted almost seven years ago.

The plaintiff attorneys involved in the vaginal mesh trial told the Philadelphia County jury panel that Johnson & Johnson and Ethicon subsidiary failed to disclose vaginal mesh complications to their client. Plaintiff Kimberly A. had the vaginal mesh product implanted in July 2010 to treat her stress urinary incontinence (SUI).

Kimberly underwent vaginal mesh revision surgery in September 2012, to remove a portion of the mesh that had been previously implanted. Adkins had opted to file legal action against Johnson & Johnson, after the company allegedly failed to disclose this vital safety information.

Overview of Vaginal Mesh Allegations

Instead of fixing her medical condition, the vaginal mesh product reportedly eroded into Kimberly’s vagina and caused her to experience severe pain. In particular, the intense vaginal pain has prevented her from having intercourse with her partner.

This lawsuit is the fifth case to move toward becoming a vaginal mesh trial in Philadelphia and is one of almost 200 cases pending in a mass tort program from women alleging serious vaginal mesh complications.

The current litigation movement against Johnson & Johnson and Ethicon Inc. has resulted in several verdicts against the company including a $12.5 million award in December 2015.

This award came from the first vaginal mesh trial, with a $13.5 million award in second vaginal mesh trial soon following in February 2016. The most recent reward came this year from a vaginal mesh trial concluding with a $20 million award to the plaintiff.

The fourth vaginal mesh trial is currently ongoing in Philadelphia, and jurors are expected to begin deliberations soon after. The lawyers involved in the vaginal mesh trial stated that Ethicon rushed market approval for their vaginal mesh device which allegedly resulted in high failure rates and numerous injuries suffered by women.

The lawyer went onto say the internal documents indicated the company did not conduct a randomized clinical trial of the product before it was released onto the market in September 2006.

The company instead only tested the product in only 31 women test subjects. The initial results were received just a week before the product was released with a 30% failure rate and 60% of the subjects experiencing complications.

Ethicon attorneys admitted the jury would most likely hear more troubling things about the company as the vaginal mesh trial continues.

However, the attorneys argued that these injuries were not due to the vaginal mesh product having a defective nature, but that it was due to the mesh products being improperly implanted.

This Vaginal Mesh Trial is Case No.130700919 in the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County, Pennsylvania.