ALERT: Your health is top priority. We’re committed to providing reliable COVID-19 resources to keep you informed and safe.

First Ethicon Hernia Mesh Trial Set for 2018

Lawyer packing up briefcase and a gavel

Ethicon will defend against claims that its hernia mesh caused serious injuries in a trial slated to begin in 2018, according to court documents.

The trial is the first Ethicon will face over its Physiomesh Flexible Composite Mesh. The plaintiff, Matthew Huff, was one of the first to file a lawsuit after Ethicon pulled the hernia mesh from the market in 2016.

According to the company, it stopped selling the product because of higher rates of hernia recurrence and re-operation compared to similar products. Ethicon issued a voluntary recall in Europe and other countries, but only a “market withdrawal” in the U.S.

Two years after Huff initially received the mesh in 2013, he developed severe pain, fever, chills and nausea. Huff went to the hospital where doctors found infection surrounding the implant.

Huff’s lawsuit claims he suffered abscesses and an intestinal fistula — a condition where organs abnormally fuse together — that required additional surgery to treat.

Physiomesh ‘Unreasonably Dangerous’

Originally cleared for sale by the FDA in March 2010, Physiomesh is a flexible net-like mesh made of polypropylene plastic. The mesh has two layers of Monocryl, an absorbable material that protects against inflammation and adhesion.

Instead, lawsuits claim, the coating may lead to major complications.

“The product, Ethicon Physiomesh Composite Mesh, was defective, unreasonably dangerous, and not suitable for implantation in Matthew Huff,” the lawsuits states. “Huff has suffered severe and serious problems and complications…caused by the product.”

Did you suffer complications after a hernia mesh surgery? Get a Free Case Review

The judge initially scheduled Huff’s case for trial on July 31, 2017, according to court documents. But lawyers on both sides petitioned for more time because of “the complex issues in this case.”

Other plaintiffs have since filed suit against Ethicon claiming similar injuries linked to Physiomesh.

Multiple Companies Face Hernia Mesh Lawsuits

Ethicon is not the only company that faces a growing number of hernia mesh lawsuits.

C.R. Bard faced thousands of injury claims linked to its Kugel Hernia Patch. Bard first recalled the patch in 2005 because it could cause bowel perforations and fistulas. The first lawsuits followed soon after.

In 2010, a jury ruled in favor of plaintiff Christopher Thorpe and found the Kugel Hernia Patch defective. The jury awarded Thorpe $1.5 million in damages.

In 2011, Bard agreed to settle 2,600 Kugel lawsuits for $184 million.

Maquet Getinge’s Atrium subsidiary also faces lawsuits linked to its Atrium C-QUR mesh line. Like Physiomesh, C-QUR is a coated mesh.

The polypropylene C-QUR mesh is coated in Omega 3 fatty acids (O3FA) fish oil. Atrium’s marketing materials claim the O3FA coating “has been shown to minimize tissue attachment to mesh.”

Instead, lawsuits and studies claim that the fish oil coating may cause inflammation and adhesions — thick scar tissue.

Trials have yet to be scheduled for the Atrium cases.

Michelle Llamas, Senior Content Writer
Written By Michelle Llamas Senior Writer

Michelle Llamas has been writing articles and producing podcasts about drugs, medical devices and the FDA for nearly a decade. She focuses on various medical conditions, health policy, COVID-19, LGBTQ health, mental health and women’s health issues. Michelle collaborates with experts, including board-certified doctors, patients and advocates, to provide trusted health information to the public. Some of her qualifications include:

  • Member of American Medical Writers Association (AMWA) and former Engage Committee and Membership Committee member
  • Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) Health Literacy certificates
  • Original works published or cited in The Lancet, British Journal of Clinical Pharmacology and the Journal for Palliative Medicine

2 Cited Research Articles writers follow rigorous sourcing guidelines and cite only trustworthy sources of information, including peer-reviewed journals, court records, academic organizations, highly regarded nonprofit organizations, government reports and interviews with qualified experts. Review our editorial policy to learn more about our process for producing accurate, current and balanced content.

  1. Huff v. Ethicon. (2016, April 1). In the United States District Court Southern District of Illinois, Plaintiff's Original Complaint. Case 3:16-cv-00368-JPG-PMF
  2. Huff v. Ethicon. (2016, August 15). In the United States District Court for the Southern District of Illinois Benton Division, Joint Motion for Reassignment of Case to Track C. Case 3:16-cv-00368-JPG-PMF.
View All Sources
Call to speak with a legal expert
Who Am I Calling?

Calling this number connects you with one of Drugwatch's trusted legal partners. A law firm representative will review your case for free.

Drugwatch's trusted legal partners support the organization’s mission to keep people safe from dangerous drugs and medical devices. For more information, visit our partners page.

(844) 807-8916