Ethicon Hernia Mesh Removal Required Due to Unreasonable Risks of Multi-Layered Prolene Patch Design

As a result of an unreasonably dangerous and defective design associated with Ethicon Prolene hernia mesh, a California man indicates that he suffered complications only a few years after the patch was implanted, which resulted in the need for surgical removal of the hernia mesh.

The complaint (PDF) was filed by Vincent J. Grant, Jr. in New Jersey Superior Court on August 2, indicating that Johnson & Johnson and it’s Ethicon subsidiary should be held liable for designing, manufacturing and marketing the multi-layered Prolene patch.

Grant indicates that he underwent a right inguinal hernia repair in March 2015, at which time an Ethicon Prolene Hernia System was used. However, after experiencing complications with the hernia mesh, Grant required additional surgery in September 2017, after suffering extensive adhesions to the colon and appendix.

Is there a hernia mesh lawsuit? Find out if you qualify for a hernia mesh lawsuit settlement payout.
Is there a hernia mesh lawsuit? Find out if you qualify for a hernia mesh lawsuit settlement payout.

At the time of the Ethicon hernia mesh was removed, the surgeon found that part of the product had become folded and shaped like a cup, entrapping the iliohypogastric and ilioinguinal nerves within it. Grant now suffers severe pain, nerve damage, stress and anxiety as a result.

“Ethicon Multi-Layered Hernia Mesh created an unreasonable risk of harm to Plaintiff,” the lawsuit states. “The unreasonable risk of injury and harm, including pain, dense adhesion formation, organ complications, mesh shrinkage, hernia recurrence, seroma and fistula formation, and infection, whether from a prolonged and pronounced inflammatory response caused by the multiple layers, degradation of polymers, non-conforming subcomponents, or some other mechanism, renders Ethicon Multi-Layered Hernia Mesh a defective product, unsafe for its intended use.”

The complaint raises allegations similar to those presented in other hernia mesh lawsuits filed in recent months against Ethicon over Prolene and other multi-layer hernia patch designs used in thousands of procedures nationwide.

In addition to claims involving Prolene mesh, Ethicon Physiomesh lawsuits have been filed over a similar product removed from the market in 2016, amid a large number of reports involving premature failure.

Similar allegations have also been raised in Bard hernia mesh lawsuits and Atrium C-Qur lawsuits, involving complications associated with those other polypropylene designs sold by other companies.

As individuals who have experienced complications following a hernia repair continue to investigate and review potential cases with lawyers nationwide, it is expected that tens of thousands of complaints may be brought against various hernia mesh manufacturers in the coming months.

Written by: Irvin Jackson

Senior Legal Journalist & Contributing Editor

Irvin Jackson is a senior investigative reporter at AboutLawsuits.com with more than 30 years of experience covering mass tort litigation, environmental policy, and consumer safety. He previously served as Associate Editor at Inside the EPA and contributes original reporting on product liability lawsuits, regulatory failures, and nationwide litigation trends.




0 Comments


This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.

Share Your Comments

This field is hidden when viewing the form
I authorize the above comments be posted on this page
Post Comment
Weekly Digest Opt-In

Want your comments reviewed by a lawyer?

To have an attorney review your comments and contact you about a potential case, provide your contact information below. This will not be published.

NOTE: Providing information for review by an attorney does not form an attorney-client relationship.

MORE TOP STORIES

As FanDuel and other sportsbooks push parlay betting and social gambling features ahead of major events like the Super Bowl, lawsuits are being investigated over whether these high-risk products fueled gambling addiction and financial harm among young users.
A nitrous oxide lawsuit filed against Amazon and other manufacturers and distributors alleges the defendants knowingly sold nitrous oxide canisters for illegal recreational use without adequate warnings, and in violation of state and federal laws.