A New Jersey man has filed a new Ethicon Physiomesh lawsuit in New Jersey Superior Court. He claims that the Ethicon Physiomesh that was implanted to treat his incisional hernias caused him serious ongoing injuries. The plaintiff seeks to hold manufacturer Ethicon, Inc. and parent company Johnson & Johnson (J&J) liable for his medical expenses and lost wages.
Plaintiff Implanted with Physiomesh Suffers Serious Injuries
According to his complaint, the plaintiff was implanted with a Physiomesh on February 24, 2014 to repair multiple incisional hernias. Incisional hernias occur when tissue pokes through a scarring from an incision in the abdominal wall made during a previous surgical procedure. These types of hernias are relatively common and are not especially dangerous unless the hernia becomes strangulated. The New Jersey plaintiff was implanted with a 20 x 25 cm Physiomesh product, which is designed to hold the herniated tissues and muscles in place and support a stronger repair.
However, only a few months after implantation, the plaintiff had to return to the hospital to have the mesh product removed due to complications. Upon examining the implantation area, the plaintiff’s doctors noticed extensive adhesions and a recurrent hernia at the edge of where the mesh was placed. Part of the mesh was also incarcerated into the hernia sac.
Following the revision surgery, the plaintiff has continued to experience pain, nausea, diarrhea, chills, loss of appetite, and extreme weight loss as a result of the complications related to the Physiomesh. The plaintiff’s symptoms have prevented him from working and, ultimately, caused him to lose his business.
Defendants Failed to Notify the Plaintiff of the Physiomesh Recall
The plaintiff claims that neither he nor his surgeon was warned about the potential for these sorts of side effects. Furthermore, the plaintiff states that the defendants failed to notify him of the recall of his Physiomesh implant or of the problems associated with the product.
In May 2016, Ethicon recalled all Physiomesh Flexible Composite Mesh (for laporoscopic use) because recurrence and reoperation rates after laparoscopic repair using Physiomesh were “higher than the average rates of the comparator set of meshes among patients in these registries.”
Plaintiff Cites the Multi-Layer Design of Physiomesh as Problematic
The plaintiff identifies Physiomesh’s multi-layer design as the cause of his injuries. His complaint explains that Physiomesh contain five distinct layers: two layers of Monocryl (poliglecaprone-25) film, which cover two underlying layers of polydioxanone film (PDS), all of which cover a propylene mesh.
Physiomesh is the only hernia mesh which uses this design that is sold in the U.S. The defendants originally advertised the multi-layer design as an advantage of the product that would prevent adhesions and inflammation. However, later reports have shown the contrary, that the Physiomesh’s coating seems to in fact prevent adequate incorporation into the body and causes or contributes to an inflammatory response, resulting in migration of the mesh, damage to surrounding tissue, and improper healing.
The New Jersey plaintiff brings claims for defective design and manufacture, failure to warn, breach of warranties, and negligence, and seeks both compensatory and punitive damages.
Exclusively focused on representing plaintiffs, especially in mass tort litigation, Eric Chaffin prides himself on providing unsurpassed professional legal services in pursuit of the specific goals of his clients and their families. Both his work and his cases have been featured in the national press, including on ABC’s Good Morning America.
Comments for this article are closed.