A woman has brought a vaginal mesh lawsuit against Ethicon Inc., claiming the company failed to properly warn her about the risks associated with its product.

Plaintiff Arlene C. says she was implanted with a pelvic mesh product made by Ethicon to treat pelvic organ prolapse and stress urinary incontinence.

She is now suing Ethicon, its parent company Johnson & Johnson, and their related companies over injuries she attributes to the mesh she was implanted with.

According to Arlene’s vaginal mesh lawsuit, these products were developed based on surgical techniques used since the 1950s to repair abdominal hernias.

By the 1970s, doctors had begun adapting mesh products designed for hernia repair for use in repairing gynecological conditions like pelvic organ prolapse and stress urinary incontinence.

These two conditions sometimes occur together. Pelvic organ prolapse happens when weakened pelvic muscles fail to support the abdominal organs, allowing them to descend into the vagina. It sometimes happens around the time of menopause or after childbirth.

Vaginal mesh can be used to repair pelvic organ prolapse in cases that do not respond to more conservative treatment. The mesh is inserted through the vagina and attached to the pelvic floor ligaments and vaginal tissue.

Starting in the 1990s and continuing through today, manufacturers like Ethicon have made mesh products specifically designed for these gynecological applications. These products come in kits that contain the surgical mesh, tissue fixation anchors, and insertion tools.

However, in Arlene’s vaginal mesh lawsuit and others like it, plaintiffs have claimed to suffer complications from these devices beyond what they were led to expect. Women who’ve had vaginal mesh implanted have complained of abdominal and pelvic pain, pain during intercourse, erosion of the mesh, and the need for corrective surgery to resolve problems.

Arlene specifically takes issue with the polypropylene used in making vaginal mesh. She says this material is “biologically incompatible with human tissue” and can promote an immune response that leads to degradation of the mesh and nearby pelvic tissue.

Contrary to Ethicon’s marketing materials that presented their pelvic mesh products as a safe and effective product, Arlene says, these products actually have a high rate of failure – causing injury and complications, and sometimes necessitating corrective surgery.

She alleges that Ethicon and the other defendants purposely withheld information about the risks associated with vaginal mesh, keeping patients and their doctors in the dark.

Other Vaginal Mesh Lawsuits

Thousands of other women have made claims similar to the ones Arlene makes here. Over 49,000 vaginal mesh lawsuits have been filed in federal court against several different manufacturers.

Some of these cases that proceeded through trial yielded jury verdicts in the millions. In September 2014, a jury in Texas issued a $73.5 million judgment against Boston Scientific for complications associated with its Obtryx vaginal sling. In March 2015, a jury awarded $5.7 million to a woman whose Ethicon Abbrevo sling could not be surgically removed after it grew into her tissues.

The Vaginal Mesh Lawsuit is Case No. 1:15-CV-01106 in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Mexico.