Hernia Mesh Suit In Favor Of J&J, Ethicon

Introduction

A federal judge has awarded a verdict in favor of Johnson & Johnson (J&J) and Ethicon Inc. in a lawsuit against a woman who alleged that companies' pelvic mesh implant resulted in injuries to her.

As per the lawsuit filed by the woman in 2017, she suffered from pain, discomfort and other complications post the mesh implant. She underwent surgery in July 2008 to have her bladder removed and replace it with the implant. The implant came back and the woman underwent another surgery in December 2008 to get the mesh removed.

The woman did not sue the company until 2017. She filed the lawsuit after seeing a law firm's television commercial about pelvic mesh mass tort litigation. Initially, the case was part of a pelvic mesh multidistrict litigation, which was later transferred out as it involved a different product.

However, a senior U.S. district judge argued that the woman waited for too long to file the lawsuit as under the most generous limitations period, the plaintiff need to file the lawsuit within six years. The judge even notified that the woman underwent additional surgery in April 2015 to remove the infected mesh, but still, it was two years before the suit was filed.

The lawsuit was awarded in J&J and Ethicon's favor considering the two-year limitation period in tortious conduct and six-year statute of limitations in civil actions.

C.R. Bard has been awarded the first win in the Ventralight ST hernia mesh of Ohio, where the plaintiff accused that the company's product was defective and resulted in multiple injuries to him.

In 2015, the plaintiff got implanted the mesh to treat hernia, but soon he suffered pain and emotional distress due to the defective mesh products as per the allegations. Later, the plaintiff was required to undergo additional surgery to get the mesh removed, which was physically and mentally stressful for him.

As per the lawsuit, the plaintiff alleged that "ST" coating designed to "resorb" did not last for long as advertised by the company, which resulted in serious injuries. The lawsuit alleged the company of failing to inform the consumers about the design defects and risks associated with the products.

It is the first trial consolidated in the MDL formed in Ohio court in August 2018 against the company. On September 2, the court rejected the C.R. Bard’s pre-verdict motion, considering the evidence provided by the plaintiffs that highlight the dangers of the product to the patients.

U.S. District Judge Edmund A. Sargus, Jr. is overseeing all the product liability claims in the MDL formed in the Southern District of Ohio, where the company faces more than 8,000 lawsuits.

Comments