A hernia repair patient says she suffered signs of hernia mesh failure more severe than what she was led to expect.

Plaintiff Hollie F. says she underwent hernia repair surgery in May 2007 and was implanted with Prolene Hernia Mesh System designed by Johnson & Johnson and Ethicon. However, she says she later experienced signs of hernia mesh failure including severe pain and inflammation.

In December 2007, she says she underwent exploratory surgery to identify the problem which revealed granulation tissue and required partial removal. Despite partial removal of the mesh, Hollie allegedly continued to experience signs of hernia mesh failure and required additional revision surgeries in May and October of 2018.

“Plaintiff experienced and/or experiences severe pain, numbness, multiple revision surgeries, scarring, disfigurement, inflammation, stress and anxiety which have impaired her activities of daily living. Plaintiff is at a higher risk of severe complications during an abdominal surgery, to the extent that future abdominal operations might not be feasible,” the hernia mesh lawsuit claims.

According to Hollie’s complaint, the Prolene system was marketed as a product which diminished the risk of hernia recurrence and chronic pain. However, the mesh product allegedly failed to follow through on these representations.

Instead, the polypropylene mesh used in the hernia repair product is allegedly “unreasonably susceptible to in vivo oxidative degradation,” a process which can lead to inflammation, an adverse foreign body response, shrinkage, scarification, pain and mesh deformation.

Hollie also claims that the multiple layers used in the mesh design increase the inflammatory response in the body and make it harder to heal.

Overall, the signs of hernia mesh failure with the Prolene Hernia System are allegedly painful, damaging, and can lead to further complications which may follow patients for years – as was reportedly the case for Hollie.

“When a Prolene Hernia System fails, the complications are harder to treat and the eventual explantation of the Prolene Hernia System results in large amounts of tissue loss due to the Prolene Hernia System occupying two inguinal compartments,” Hollie argues.

Hollie claims that Ethicon and Johnson & Johnson knew or should have known that their consumers would experience signs of hernia mesh failure due to alleged defects with the product. However, the companies reportedly failed to test their product sufficiently before releasing it onto the market, meaning that they allegedly did not know how their product would perform.

The hernia mesh class action claims that the manufacturing companies were negligent by releasing their product without testing. According to Hollie, this alleged negligence caused her to be injured by pain and suffering, emotional distress, and mental anguish in addition to her physical injuries.

The complaint brings claims of defective design, failure to warn, manufacturing defect, negligence, breach of implied warranty, and breach of express warranty, all under New Jersey and Florida state laws.

Hollie seeks special damages, past and future loss of earnings and earning capacity, past and future general damages, treble damages, punitive damages, court costs and attorneys’ fees.

The Hernia Mesh Lawsuit is Case No. 3:18-cv-17113-FLW-DEA in the Superior Court of New Jersey, Middlesex County.