Ethicon Physiomesh Bellwether Trial Pushed to June 22, 2020

Ethicon Physiomesh Bellwether Trial Pushed to June 22, 2020

Introduction

U.S. District Judge Richard Story, presiding over all federal Ethicon Physiomesh lawsuits, in the Northern District of Georgia, recently announced an almost two-month delay for the beginning of the first Ethicon Physiomesh Trial. 

The court issued an amended practice and procedure order on September 23, after hearing the comments and considering the proposals of the parties relative to case management, indicating the first trial to begin on June 22, 2020, which had earlier been set for April 2020.

By January 27, 2020, the court will decide the manner of trial, the order of selection for plaintiffs, and the timing of additional trial cases. The order further indicated the Daubert motions challenging the admissibility of expert witness testimony would be due in each trial case by February 24, 2020, with a pre-trial conference to be set before the first trial.

Ethicon Physiomesh is a  multi-layered, flexible surgical hernia mesh manufactured by J&J’s subsidiary Ethicon. Currently, more than 2,000 product liability lawsuits over Ethicon Physiomesh remain pending in the federal court system as part of MDL No. 2782. Allegations include the drugmaker sold defective and dangerous product causing plaintiffs to suffer severe abdominal pain, infection, hernia recurrence, adhesions, perforations, erosion, and other injuries associated with a hernia mesh failure.

Manufacturers of other polypropylene products introduced in recent years, namely Bard hernia mesh, Covidien Parietex mesh, Atrium C-Qur, and a few others, are facing similar allegations in various courts across the nation. 

Earlier, Judge Peter G. Sheridan of the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey declined to dismiss product liability and personal injury claims involving Ethicon Inc.'s hernia mesh.

The Texas plaintiff received a mesh implant in 2011, to repair his inguinal hernia. Eventually, the plaintiff experienced multiple infections and chronic abdominal pain that resulted in the removal of the implant in January 2017. In December 2018, the plaintiff filed a lawsuit against Ethicon.

The company argued that the plaintiff filed a lawsuit pretty late and asked the jury to dismiss the case. However, the plaintiff maintained that the statute of limitations didn’t run until his revision surgery in January 2017.

In an order published September 11, Judge Sheridan notified the defense can raise a motion only where it affirmatively appears on the face of the complaint that the action pleaded is barred by the statute of limitations.