Rhode Island personal injury lawyer, David Slepkow is reviewing hernia mesh claims on behalf of injured victim. Contact attorney David Slepkow to get more information concerning: hernia mesh lawsuit settlement amounts.

product liability, defective medical device

What types of complications can result from defective hernia mesh?

David is reviewing the following cases: Ethicon Physiomesh™, Atrium C-QUR, Composix® Kugel® mesh patches (manufactured by C.R. Bard subsidiary Davol), all C.R. Bard mesh patches made of Marlex polypropylene. David provides the following information concerning Hernia Mesh litigation.

What you need to know

There are dozens of complication that are caused by defective hernia mesh implanted in  a victim’s body as a result of a surgical procedure. Some of the complications constitute: Mesh migration, bacterial infections, hernia recurrence, additional surgeries to treat hernia recurrence. Lawyersandsettlements.com citing the Food and drug administration (FDA) stated listed certain complications, “Pain, Infection, Bowel obstruction, hernia recurrence, adhesion (when the mesh adheres to the patient’s tissue), infection, obstruction, adhesion (when the mesh adheres to the patient’s tissue), recurrence, perforation”  Lawyers 

What types of Hernia Mesh Claims is David Slepkow reviewing?

Johnson and Johnson subsidiary, Ethicon hernia mesh product removal

On May 27th, 2016  a subsidiary of Johnson and Johnson, Ethicon,  issued an urgent medical device removal of its “ETHICON PHYSIOMESH™ Flexible Composite Mesh (All Product Codes. In the letter, Johnson and Johnson stated, “We have initiated a worldwide medical device removal of ETHICON PHYSIOMESH™ Flexible Composite Mesh (for laparoscopic use) (“ETHICON PHYSIOMESH™ Composite Mesh”). We are removing the product following an analysis conducted at the request of the Ethicon Medical Safety Team of unpublished data from two (2) large independent hernia registries (Herniamed German Registry and Danish Hernia DatabaseDHDB). The recurrence/reoperation rates (respectively) after laparoscopic ventral hernia repair using ETHICON PHYSIOMESH™ Composite Mesh were higher than the average rates of the comparator set of meshes among patients in these registries. ” Medical Device Removal of Ethicon Physiomesh Flexible Composite Mesh Page 1 of 7

Ethicon’s removal of  PHYSIOMESH™ is not a recall according to Ethicon

The removal letter went on to state in pertinent part, “Based on the currently available data, we believe the higher rates to be a multifactorial issue (including possible product characteristics, operative and patient factors), but we have not been able to fully characterize these factors. Consequently, we have not been able at this time to issue further instructions to surgeons that might lead to a reduction in the recurrence rate and have decided to remove ETHICON PHYSIOMESH™ Composite Mesh from the global market. Medical Device Removal of Ethicon Physiomesh Flexible Composite Mesh Page 1 of 7

Ethicon cease and desist
Ethicon’s cease and desist letter

Ethicon corporate law firm, Butler and Snow asserted in a correspondence to me on February 6 , 2016 that “The removal of Physiomesh from the United States market was classified by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) as a Market Withdrawal, not a recall. The inaccuracy of your statement may be due to your mistaken reliance upon the classification of the Market Withdrawal as a recall by foreign regulatory bodies that have different definitions for such actions under local regulations.” see letter to left.

Ethicon also demanded that I “post a clear and prominent statement on your firm’s website correcting the false statements. Ethicon also stated, “Please be advised in the event you decide to continue to disseminate false and inaccurate statements, and do not take immediately take the corrective measures outlined above, Ethicon will be compelled to take action and to pursue all rights and remedies at law and in equity.”  Letter from Ashley Nader Stubbs to Rhode Island personal injury attorney, David Slepkow, Ashley Nader Stubbs, Suite 1400 1020 Highland Colony Parkway Ridgeland, MS 39157 www.butlersnow.com Butler Snow LLP

Ethicon’s removal of PHYSIOMESH™ is a gift to class action attorneys

The urgent medical device removal letter and the subsequent market removal appears to be a  stunning admission of liability on behalf of Johnson and Johnson related to ETHICON PHYSIOMESH. Product liability attorneys and surgical malpractice lawyers who specialize in defective medical device litigation have now commenced the process of holding Johnson and Johnson’s subsidiary Ethicon accountable for their conduct.

A high powered hernia mesh attorney

Rhode Island (RI) and Massachusetts (MA) defective medical device lawyers and product liability attorneys are preparing litigation to get justice and accountability for injured and suffering victims. A high powered hernia mesh attorney knows how to hold corporate America accountable for their malfeasance.

The Hollis Law firm states, “The Physiomesh lawsuit is against Ethicon, a subsidiary of Johnson & Johnson. The Physiomesh is made from polypropylene and is intended for hernia repair. Ethicon has been battling lawsuits for years against its transvaginal mesh products, which are also made from polypropylene. Ethicon continues to deny the life-threatening complications that polypropylene causes. However, Ethicon issued a market withdrawal on the Physiomesh in May of 2016.” Hollis law 

Hernia mesh lawsuit settlement amounts

Many injured victims are searching google seeking information with the following types of searches “ethicon physiomesh flexible composite mesh”, “ethicon physiomesh”, “physiomesh complications”,”ethicon physiomesh 2016″, “hernia mesh lawsuit”, “surgical mesh class action lawsuit”, “hernia mesh lawsuit settlements”, “hernia mesh lawyers”, “hernia mesh surgery”.

Important things  surgical mesh victims need to know before filing a hernia mesh lawsuit:

Legal Notice per Rules of Professional Responsibility: The Rhode Island Supreme Court licenses all lawyers and attorneys in the general practice of law, but does not license or certify any lawyer / attorney as an expert or specialist in any field of practice. While this firm maintains joint responsibility, most cases of this type are referred to other attorneys for principle responsibility.

Skip to content