Question:

How Do I Find Out If My Hernia Mesh Was Recalled?

Answer:

The lawyers at Saiontz & Kirk, P.A. represent individuals nationwide who have experienced painful complications that may have been caused by several different types of defective or recalled hernia mesh products used in recent years.

Unfortunately, it is not always easy for an individual to determine if the hernia patch placed inside their body has been recalled or removed from the market. However, our attorneys can help determine if you or a loved one may have a case.

In many situations, hernia mesh recalls are never actually communicated to consumers. While surgeons may be told to stop using a specific type of patch, it is unlikely that any recall notice or warning letter would be sent to individuals who received the hernia mesh, and they may not learn about the recall or design problems with their patch until after severe complications have already been experienced.

In addition, many manufacturers have quietly removed hernia mesh products from the market after discovering a higher-than-expected rate of problems, describing their action as a “Market Withdrawal” instead of a recall. Therefore, it is very difficult for a consumer to research whether other individuals may be experiencing similar problems after receiving the same type of hernia repair mesh.

Regardless of whether a hernia patch was recalled officially by the manufacturer, financial compensation may be available for individuals who have experienced problems following hernia repair that required additional procedures to remove the surgical mesh. It is not necessary to know what type of hernia mesh was implanted before request a free case evaluation, as our attorneys can help!

To review a potential claim for yourself or a family member, request a free consultation and hernia mesh recall case evaluation.

Types of Defective or Recalled Hernia Mesh

While our product liability lawyers are reviewing and investigating a wide variety of different products, two specific types of hernia mesh that are the subject of many lawsuits is the Ethicon Physiomesh and Atrium C-Qur Patch.

Ethicon Physiomesh Recall Lawsuits

Johnson & Johnson’s Ethicon subsidiary did issue a Physiomesh hernia patch recall in May 2016, removing certain products from the market worldwide. Although recall letters were sent to physicians in many countries, no official hernia mesh recall notice was provided in the United States, where the manufacturer describes their action as a “Market Withdrawal”.

The Ethicon Physiomesh was recalled from the market after unpublished data from two large hernia repair registries found high recurrence or hernia reoperation rates among individuals who received specific versions of this patch. Ethicon has admitted that it is unable to determine the cause of these complications, and was unable to offer guidance to doctors on how to avoid Physiomesh complications. Therefore, the company decided to pull the patch off the market, and instructed hospitals and surgeons to return any unused Physiomesh products.

According to allegations raised in Ethicon Physiomesh recall lawsuits being pursued by our lawyers for individuals throughout the U.S., the manufacturer knew or should have known about the risk of complications long before they removed their device from the market.

Rather than immediately recalling the hernia mesh, Ethicon continued to allow surgeons to implant the device and has taken steps designed to prevent consumers from learning that their hernia patch was recalled from the market worldwide.

Atrium C-Qur Stealth Recall Lawsuits

The Atrium C-Qur mesh is another controversial and problematic hernia repair product used during many surgical procedures since it was introduced in 2006. This product involves a polypropylene mesh with a fish oil coating that has been linked to allergic reactions and rejection of the patch following hernia repair.

Although several different variations of the hernia patch have been discontinued or removed from the market, no official notice of an Atrium C-Qur recall has been provided to surgeons or patients. Rather, the company has engaged in what many are describing as a “stealth” recall.

Given the large number of Atrium C-Qur mesh lawsuits filed in courts nationwide, the U.S. Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation (JPML) established consolidated pretrial proceedings in the federal court system, centralizing the case as part of a “mass tort” in the District of New Hampshire.

Many of the complaints raise similar allegations, indicating that the manufacturer should have recalled Atrium C-Qur hernia mesh once it became clear that many individuals were experiencing problems caused by the design.

Free Consultation and Case Evaluation

Free consultations are provided to assist individuals and families in determining whether financial compensation or hernia mesh settlements may be available as a result of complications from both recalled hernia patches, and those still on the market.

CONTACT OUR HERNIA MESH RECALL LAWYERS ABOUT A LAWSUIT

Austin Kirk
Last Updated January 19th, 2017
by
2 Comments

2 Comments

  1. Judy August 1, 2017 at 6:51 am - Reply

    I have the ventralight and it has rolled into a ball in me causes alot of pain and the doctors wants to remove but yet this one is not a recall but it has caused damage in me.

  2. kirk September 5, 2017 at 12:10 pm - Reply

    BARD/Davol 3D Max mesh has put me chronic pain, and I had to have two seromas on my pelvis removed, my right testicle has so much fluid built up in it fells like it’s going to explode, than it swells. Why don’t I hear anything about Bard lawsuits? it’s all phisyomesh or whatever

Add Your Comments

  • Have Your Comments Reviewed by a Lawyer

    Provide contact information below and additional private comments if you want an attorney to contact you to review a potential case.

    The information below will not be published to this page.

  • NOTE: Providing information for review by an attorney does not form an attorney-client relationship.

  • This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.