It is crucially important that a victim be able to obtain necessary product identification codes. In order to determine the hernia mesh product implanted, the mesh lawyer must determine:
- The mesh manufacturer (I.e. Johnson and Johnson, Bard/ Davol, Covidien/ Medtronic, Atrium)
- the type of mesh
- product code
- lot number
Product code and lot number
If the attorney is unable to determine the product code and lot number of a particular mesh, the manufacturer may be able to get the case dismissed. Each hernia mesh product is associated with a product identification code and lot number. Together, these codes serve to identify a particular product manufactured at a precise point in time. There are many different hernia mesh manufacturers that make similar hernia mesh products and doctors often use product names interchangeably in operative reports. For that reason, the operative report alone is often insufficient to prove product identification. Further, billing records alone is often insufficient to prove product identification. Rather, the product codes are required to prove that a particular product was implanted.
The lack of product identification could be fatal to the case
A hernia mesh lawsuit can still be pursued in certain circumstances if the mesh is identified in the operative report despite the fact that the attorneys were unable to obtain proof of the product code and lot number. It is important for mesh victims to understand the lack of product identification could be fatal to the case. It is possible that the manufacture and their lawyers will be able to successfully defeat the lawsuit based on lack of product identification. This would mean the mesh victim would get no recovery and the case would be dismissed,
Ethicon had a hernia mesh case against it in New Jersey dismissed
Recently, Johnson & Johnson and their subsidiary Ethicon had a hernia mesh case against it in New Jersey dismissed with prejudice. The reason for the dismissal was the victim could not prove or accurately identify the type of mesh implanted. The Court refused to determine whether or not the hernia mesh was defective. Instead, the court found that the plaintiff could not prove that Johnson & Johnson was, in fact, the entity responsible for the hernia mesh that injured the plaintiff. The plaintiff did not have surgical records with the product sticker which would have definitively established the hernia mesh utilized by the surgeon. Obtaining the surgical records with the mesh sticker is a critically important step prior to filing a hernia mesh lawsuit. The hernia mesh lawyer must be able to identify the manufacturer and brand of hernia mesh implanted in the victim. You can request your medical records from the hospital medical records department where the hernia mesh was implanted. Send a medical authorization to disclose protected health information (release of medical records) pursuant to HIPAA privacy regulations. (Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996)
How to identify your hernia mesh product?
- The best way to identify the manufacturer and brand of hernia mesh is by obtaining the product stickers page.
- Product stickers should be located in the implant surgery records from the surgery when the mesh was surgically implanted. These are actual stickers affixed to the medical records that looks like a label. The product stickers / labels in the surgical medical records will identify he name of the manufacturer as well as the lot number, reference number and catalog number.
- Product sticker labels from the mesh implant surgery are a critically important pieces of evidence.
- Most hernia mesh lawyers will not file a hernia mesh lawsuit unless the medical records contain a product sticker.
- Many states have laws allowing hospitals or surgical centers to destroy medical records after a certain amount of years which is often 10 years.
Can a l hernia mesh lawsuit be filed if I am not able to clearly identify what type of mesh was used in my implant surgery?
- No. In order to prevail in a hernia mesh lawsuit, the victim needs to identify the type of mesh implanted.
- This identification cannot be guesswork or speculation.
- In order to file a hernia mesh lawsuit, the lawyers will need operative reports, surgical notes, pathology records and the discharge summary paperwork.
- The surgical mesh lawyers will need all medical records from any revision surgery as well as medical records from any medical treatment indicating complications and side effects.
Can I file a hernia mesh lawsuit without the surgical report label / sticker?
- Most lawyers will reject cases when they do not have a product sticker indicating the mesh utilized.
- Many hospitals throw away or shred their medical records after a certain time period.
- Hernia mesh lawyers could possibly attempt to identify the product using surgical notes in the operative reports which reference the product used.
- Hernia mesh lawyers could attempt to use any reference to the product in the surgical / medical records.
- Theoretically, the mesh lawyer could seek to obtain the billing records from the hospital but this not an effective way to identify the mesh.
- An enterprising mesh law firm could have the implanting surgeon execute an affidavit indicating the type of hernia mesh implanted in the victim. (The Surgeon may be resistant and uncooperative because he or she does not remember what mesh was used or is opposed to hernia mesh lawsuits in general)
Questions victims are asking:about hernia mesh product identification
- How do I find out what hernia mesh medical device was used on me?
- How do I identify what hernia mesh was implanted in my surgery?
- Do I qualify for hernia mesh lawsuit?
- Is my hernia mesh recalled?
- How do I know what type of hernia mesh I have?
How do I get my hernia mesh surgical records?
- Your hernia mesh lawsuit attorney will obtain your medical records and surgical records from your medical providers.
- You can contact the hospital and physicians and send them a Hippaa compliant request for medical records. (medical records release)
The Plaintiff Was Injured by Hernia Mesh Implanted in a Surgery
The plaintiff Deborah Kline had a hernia mesh surgery, the date of which was unclear from the decision dismissing her case. She filed a lawsuit against Johnson & Johnson for her injuries in March 2014. There seemed to be little dispute that she sustained significant injury and harm to her body from the hernia mesh. However, in her case, the court never reached the legal issue of whether the hernia mesh was defective. She was not entitled to compensation for her injuries or even for her case to reach a decision on the merits because the court was unclear as to who should ultimately be held accountable for the harm that she suffered.
The victim could not prove that Ethicon manufactured the device
In order for the defendant to be held liable in a product liability case, it needs to be clear that they were in the “stream of commerce” that resulted in a defective product being sold to a customer. Most often, it is the manufacturer of the device who is the responsible party for the damages suffered by the plaintiff. However, in order to recover, it is vital that the plaintiff file a lawsuit against the company that actually made the product. This is where the court held that Kline’s lawsuit failed.
The Plaintiff Claimed that Johnson & Johnson Was Responsible for Her Injuries
Kline assumed that Johnson & Johnson was the maker of the hernia mesh based on a notation that the physician made in her records. This led to a lawsuit to claim that Johnson & Johnson defectively designed, labeled and manufactured the hernia mesh that caused her injuries. She had initially based her lawsuit against Johnson & Johnson on the fact that the surgeon’s notes referred to “Prolene mesh.” This is the type of mesh that was made by Ethicon.
However, this was not enough for the court. The New Jersey court applied California law (since the surgery was performed in that state) and questioned whether the plaintiff had met her burden for proving who the manufacturer of the mesh was. According to the court, even though the surgeon used the term “Prolene” mesh in his notes, he could have used this term generically to refer to any kind of hernia mesh. A comparison would be that people use the term “Coke” to generically refer to any kind of Cola.
The court further looked at the hospital’s records to see whether it had purchased any hernia mesh from Johnson & Johnson during the time period at issue in the trial. The court did not find any evidence of these purchases.
The Expert Witness’ Testimony Was Not Sufficient to Persuade the Court
Absent this evidence, the plaintiff tried to rely on the testimony of an expert witness to argue that the term “Prolene mesh” in the surgeon’s notes referred to the product that was made by Johnson & Johnson. However, the court took issue with the nature of the expert’s opinion. Specifically, the court found that it was a “net opinion.” This is a term that is used to refer to expert testimony that lacks the “why” and the “therefore.” Accordingly, the court disregarded the expert testimony and threw out the expert testimony. Thus, the plaintiff was left with no proof that the possibly defective hernia mesh was made by Johnson & Johnson.
Kline had also tried to argue that, even with the manufacturer uncertain, Johnson & Johnson should be found liable under the market share liability doctrine. This doctrine generally holds that when it cannot be proven that the defendant manufactured the defective product that it be held responsible in proportion to its share of the market. However, the court here found that the facts of the doctrine did not apply here because all hernia mesh products would need to be substantially the same and they are not.
These findings led the court to grant summary judgment to Johnson & Johnson. Summary judgment is granted when there is no dispute as to material facts of the case and the defendant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.
Kline appealed the trial court’s judgment to the appeals court seeking to overturn the summary judgment in favor of Johnson & Johnson. However, the appeals court found that the trial court acted properly in its ruling. The appeals court also specifically noted the actions of the plaintiff’s attorney who tried to obtain evidence through discovery after deadlines in the case had passed. The court noted that the attorney had three years to get this evidence through discovery but did not do so. For Kline, this likely means the end of the line in her attempts to be compensated for the harm that she has suffered.
This Decision Does not Affect the Other Hernia Mesh Cases
Here, it is important to reiterate that the court specifically noted that this ruling was not precedential. It has no bearing on whether Johnson & Johnson is or is not liable for damages that consumers have suffered from its hernia mesh. The decision was limited to just the particular facts of this case insofar as the proper defendant could not be named. The Court did not reach the issue at all of whether the hernia mesh was defective. The court also specifically focused on the fact that the lawyer in the case did not comp
However, this calls into question the difficulty that patients face in bringing a lawsuit against the proper defendant in a hernia mesh case. While most plaintiffs have a way of tracking the maker of the hernia mesh that was implanted in their body, it is certainly possible that they may simply not know which company made the defective product. Where many plaintiffs may have difficulty is that hernia meshes may fray and migrate over time, and the side effects and complications may not become apparent until years after the initial surgery. In this event, there may be challenges recreating from their medical records the name and maker of the hernia mesh. It may also be difficult to discern the brand of the hernia mesh without that since it can shrivel and become disfigured over time.
Johnson & Johnson has had a mixed record
In general, Johnson & Johnson has a mixed record when it comes to defending product liability claims associated with Ethicon’s hernia mesh. Ethicon was forced to remove its Physiomesh product back in 2016 after numerous patients were forced to undergo revision surgeries. The company has been inundated with lawsuits as reports of complications from its hernia mesh have proliferated. As a result, the company has faced a growing number of lawsuits.
Johnson & Johnson previously settled a lawsuit brought by states about its hernia mesh marketing procedures. In addition, the company has also settled millions of dollars worth of cases regarding its pelvic mesh that invoked similar issues. However, the company continues to wage legal defenses to the thousands of hernia mesh lawsuits.
- There is Physiomesh multidistrict litigation against Johnson & Johnson in Federal Court for hernia mesh products. This case has been moved to Federal Court in Georgia.
- In addition, there is a consolidated J& J / Ethicon State Court proceeding being heard in New Jersey, where Johnson & Johnson is based. This state Court proceeding is a Multicounty Litigation (MCL) litigation. This consolidated New Jersey case is for Prolene Hernia system
- There is another State Court consolidated proceeding in New Jersey State Court for Proceed hernia mesh.
- Notably, Ethicon Prolene mesh is not part of this state consolidated proceeding.
- There are also numerous individual state court lawsuits against Ethicon alleging that Ethicon mesh is defective.
If you or a loved one has received hernia mesh in surgery and has experienced side effects or required additional surgery to fix what the hernia mesh did not, you may have a legal cause of action against Johnson & Johnson or the company that made the hernia mesh. It is vital to speak with a lawyer as soon as possible because you have a limited amount of time to file a lawsuit after you begin to experience side effects. Your consultation with your hernia mesh attorney is at no cost to you, and you owe nothing if your attorney is not successful in helping you recover money.