A man from New York is alleging he suffered serious hernia mesh pain due to device complications from Johnson & Johnson’s Physiomesh, which was used to treat a hernia.

Plaintiff Carl L. says he underwent hernia repair surgery on Jan. 21, 2011, which was a typical and approved treatment purpose for the Physiomesh product. He opted to file legal action against the company after discovering other patients had allegedly developed similar complications.

Johnson & Johnson’s Physiomesh consists of several materials including a polypropylene layer, which is supposed to spur muscle inflammation in the surgical area. This inflammation is supposed to encourage healing, but can become problematic for patients if there are any adverse biological reactions.

This was allegedly the case with Carl, who reportedly begun suffering serious hernia mesh pain soon after the Physiomesh was implanted. According to his hernia mesh lawsuit, Carl underwent surgery for hernia recurrence on July 19, 2013, and is currently contending with long term complications.

Carl claims Johnson & Johnson failed to warn him and his physicians against the potential problems associated with their Physiomesh product, like allergic reactions to the mesh coating, which were allegedly not mentioned on its label. Problems with mesh coating are behind many lawsuit complaints.

Overview of Hernia Mesh Complications

Surgical mesh has been used for hernia repair for years to provide additional support for weakened or damaged tissue in the impacted area.

Surgical mesh products are made from either synthetic materials or animal tissue, both of which are supposed to be safe for human use. Surgical mesh products can also either be absorbable or non-absorbable, with the latter meant to be for permanent placement.

However, there have been a number of serious complications reported in conjunction with hernia mesh products, especially in cases where synthetic polypropylene mesh is involved.

For decades, the medical community has been concerned about polypropylene materials being implanted too close to the bowels or other organs due to the high rate of adhesion formation. The polypropylene material is designed to initiate inflammation in the surrounding muscle, but this can sometimes lead to infection or other such reactions.

Oftentimes, patients have to undergo revision surgery to fix these complications and sometimes have to get the mesh explanted.

Patients who have the Physiomesh implanted are subject to the same mesh risks, with some adverse side effects including foreign body rejection, mesh deformation, adhesion, erosion, fistula formation, and abscess development. In some cases, formations of seromas and bacterial infections can develop and can become very painful for patients.

Even though these hernia mesh complications can be devastating to patients, some patients claim Johnson & Johnson allegedly failed to disclose this information. Carl’s hernia mesh lawsuit alleges that these device complications were withheld or not discussed before it was implanted, which deprived him of making an informed medical decision.

Carl’s hernia mesh lawsuit is joining the Physiomesh MDL No. 000440-19, where it will stand alongside other claims alleging similar hernia mesh complications. Other mesh manufacturers, like Bard and Atrium, are also facing multidistrict litigation from injured mesh users. By joining an MDL, patients like Carl’s claim will face fewer obstacles in the litigation process and will most likely proceed at a much faster rate.

Carl’s Hernia Mesh Lawsuit is seeking a multitude of damages including negligence and failure to warn. His lawsuit is Case No. 3:19-cv-00547-FLW-DEA, in the Superior Court of New Jersey, Law Division, Atlantic County.