The companies are facing over a dozen similar lawsuits around the country.
The man's claim states that the device was implanted at Anderson Hospital to fix his recurrent ventral incisional hernia. Goodson claims that the manufacturer of the Physiomesh claims that the multi-layer coating prevents inflammation and adhesion, which it does not do.
The multi-layer coating is also stated to help with the incorporation of the mesh in the body.
Goodson claims that the layering failed to function as promoted, instead causing severe inflammation in the body and a foreign body response. He claims that he has suffered an adverse tissue reaction that has caused damage to the surrounding tissue and improper healing.
The plaintiff asserts that the multi-layer mesh causes a breeding ground for bacteria, which the body cannot ward off naturally.
The suit additionally claims: “Neither Plaintiff Gary Goodson nor his implanting physician were adequately warned or informed by Defendants of the defective and dangerous nature of Physiomesh.”
He is seeking compensatory damage of more than $75,000, along with pre- and post-judgment interest, court costs and punitive damages.
Physiomesh was recalled in several countries due to higher-than-expected complications in 2016. The market withdrawal came after unpublished data indicated that the hernia mesh causes higher revision and recurrence rates of hernia in the patient. The recall was not made in the United States, but hospitals were asked to stop using the product and return unused mesh products to the manufacturer.
There are at least 18 hernia mesh lawsuits filed against the makers of Physiomesh. The lawsuits all stem from the same issues: perforations, infections, adhesions, erosion and debilitating complications. The lawsuits claim that the product's defective design is to blame for the recurring issues.
All such claims may be transferred to the U.S. District Court, Middle District of Florida, pending a decision from the US Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation. The panel is scheduled to hear oral arguments on the matter this week.
The Plaintiffs motioned for the centralization of the case to help promote higher levels of efficiency and to preserve the collective resources of all parties. Ethicon is fighting back on a centralized motion, stating that all claims are too individualized in nature to be centralized.
Additional lawsuits against the companies include a product liability claim from David Watring. Watring had the mesh implanted in 2013 and experienced a recurrence of the hernia by November 2013. He claims that the return hernia had loops of small bowel and adhesions. He suffered an additional hernia at the site of the implant.
Sarah Gilman, a Florida resident, filed a lawsuit against the company, alleging that the mesh engulfed her organs and needed to be surgically removed as a result. Complications occurred within months of the implant, with a recurring hernia, adhesions to other organs and debilitating pain.
Beware: These Credit Repair Companies Could Put...
In Over Your Head? There is Help at Hand
Which Style Of Roof Is Right For You?
2012 Recruiting Trends: Companies Need To Develop...
UK Casino Compliance Changes
Understanding Available Commercial Property Insurance...
Ways To Use Gambling In Society To Make Money
5 Tips to Produce a Breath-Taking, Effective...
Things that you should know to trade the lower...
Car Accident Causes Hour Delay in Chicago
5 Steps to a Brand New You
Changes to Social Security in 2018