People's Justice

Case guide

Ethicon Hernia Mesh: Product and Care Checks

Check which mesh you received. A past notice covered one mesh version, not every product sold by Ethicon.

See If You Qualify

Free · No obligation · About 2 minutes

Updated Oct 4, 202618 sources

This may apply to you if

  • Identify the maker, model and date of your mesh implant.
  • Gather the diagnosed problem and treatment history for legal review.
  • Tell the lawyer about any prior case, offer, release or agreement.

What the public record says

These are cited sources. Their inclusion does not imply that they endorse People’s Justice or reviewed this page.

Michael J. Rosen · Department of Surgery, Center for Abdominal Core Health, Cleveland Clinic Foundation, Ohio · First-listed author of the randomized mesh trial

Finding: The 253-person trial found fewer returning hernias with synthetic mesh than with biologic mesh at two years in the studied repair. It found no significant difference in wound events requiring a procedure. The study does not describe every material, placement or rare severe complication.

Rosen original randomized hernia mesh trial, 2022 (opens in a new tab) · Jan 19, 2022 · Checked Oct 3, 2026

Therapeutic Goods Administration · Therapeutic Goods Administration, Australia · Australian medical-device regulator

Finding: The June 9, 2016 notice concerns the laparoscopic Physiomesh product and unused stock. It excludes the Open version and leaves patient care to the treating professional.

Australian TGA Physiomesh hazard alert, June9,2016 (opens in a new tab) · Jun 9, 2016 · Checked Oct 3, 2026

The evidence and its limits

Cleveland Clinic Foundation and four other specialized US medical centers · JAMA Surgery · 2022

Biologic vs synthetic mesh in contaminated ventral hernia repair

Design:
Randomized controlled trial
Participants:
253 adults: 126 assigned synthetic mesh, 127 assigned biologic mesh
Finding:
Synthetic mesh reduced two-year hernia recurrence compared with biologic mesh. No significant difference was found in wound events requiring a procedure.
Main limitation
Two materials and one placement in specific repairs at specialist centers; two-year follow-up cannot describe all models or rare severe harms. Some authors disclosed industry relationships.

Read the source: Biologic vs synthetic mesh in contaminated ventral hernia repair (opens in a new tab) · Checked Oct 3, 2026

The short answer

Which Ethicon product needs to be identified?
Use the actual implant record, not the company name alone. Keep the maker, model, material and device ID. [7]
What did the dated Physiomesh notice concern?
The 2016 alert covered one version used through small cuts. It did not cover the Open version or all other mesh. [18]
Should an implanted Physiomesh be removed?
Ask the surgeon about your own symptoms and choices. A notice does not always mean you need another operation. [18]
Does other research prove every Ethicon mesh failed?
One trial found fewer returning belly wall hernias with synthetic mesh. It does not prove that every Ethicon mesh failed. [13]

The process

What happens next

  1. 01

    You answer a few questions

    About two minutes. Nothing is sent until you agree on the last step and press submit.

  2. 02

    A lawyer looks at it

    A lawyer at the firm reads your answers and checks them against the current case criteria.

  3. 03

    The firm decides and gets in touch

    If the firm takes your case, you get the terms in writing to read before you sign. You can always say no.

Which Ethicon product needs to be identified?

Use the actual implant record, not the company name alone. Keep the maker, model, material and device ID.

FDA advises obtaining those details from the doctor or hospital after mesh surgery. Ask whether the record names Physiomesh and which version was used. A page about a company cannot establish the product, repair method or cause of a later problem. Keep the operating report with the implant label.

What did the dated Physiomesh notice concern?

The 2016 alert covered one version used through small cuts. It did not cover the Open version or all other mesh.

The TGA described higher recurrence or repeat-operation rates in two unpublished registries and said the factors were not fully known. The notice is an Australian regulator’s account, not an original registry study or a US FDA recall classification. It does not set your present lawsuit route or payment.

Should an implanted Physiomesh be removed?

Ask the surgeon about your own symptoms and choices. A notice does not always mean you need another operation.

The TGA left patient care to the treating professional and advised discussing recurrence signs with the surgeon or hospital. FDA’s general recall guidance also distinguishes correction from implant removal. Compare the risks of leaving a device and removing it with the clinician. Do not choose surgery based on a payout assumption.

Does other research prove every Ethicon mesh failed?

One trial found fewer returning belly wall hernias with synthetic mesh. It does not prove that every Ethicon mesh failed.

That 253-person study compared two materials, a specific placement and specialist care over two years. It found no significant difference in wound events that needed a procedure. Some authors disclosed industry relationships. Neither its benefit nor its limits establish the cause of your symptoms or certify every model.

Can I use Bard’s court papers for an Ethicon claim?

Bard’s fund terms are not an offer for Ethicon claims. Ask which court, product and agreement fit your case.

The Ohio December 2024 fund order is scoped to Bard hernia products and agreed claims. Do not transfer its tasks or payment language to an Ethicon implant. A separate legal review needs the actual product, harm, care dates and any prior case or release. No current Ethicon outcome is confirmed here.

What records and terms should I take to a review?

Keep implant, care and earlier claim papers. Ask for written fees, expenses and the next step.

Request covered medical and billing records and ask about access exceptions and copying charges. Show any safety letter and explain which record is missing. A contingent fee may differ from expenses owed after a loss, so ask the actual lawyer to explain the agreement instead of treating the device alert as legal representation.

Find out where you stand.

The review is free and private. Asking for it doesn’t commit you to anything.

Register your interest

Sources

  1. HHS: Your Medical RecordsHHS: Your Medical Records · regulator
  2. Federal courts: civil casesFederal courts: civil cases · court
  3. ABA: fees paid from a successful claimABA: fees paid from a successful claim
  4. SDNY: filing time limitsSDNY: filing time limits · court
  5. ABA Model Rule 1.5: feesABA Model Rule 1.5: fees
  6. FDA: surgical mesh used for hernia repairFDA: surgical mesh used for hernia repair · regulator
  7. FDA: questions and mesh identification after surgeryFDA: questions and mesh identification after surgery · regulator
  8. FDA: monitoring hernia mesh safetyFDA: monitoring hernia mesh safety · regulator
  9. FDA: what a device recall meansFDA: what a device recall means · regulator
  10. Bard/Davol CMO56 settlement fund, December16,2024Bard/Davol CMO56 settlement fund, December16,2024 · court
  11. Bard/Davol CMO54-A dismissal procedure, February19,2026Bard/Davol CMO54-A dismissal procedure, February19,2026 · court
  12. Bard/Davol CMO9-A court procedure, March3,2026Bard/Davol CMO9-A court procedure, March3,2026 · court
  13. Rosen original randomized hernia mesh trial, 2022Rosen original randomized hernia mesh trial, 2022 · study
  14. Becton Dickinson announced (Oct 2, 2024 press release) an agreement resolving the vast majority of Bard hernia mesh litigation — the federal MDL 2846 in S.D. Ohio and the Rhode Island consolidated docket, 21,000+ filed suits. Amount NOT publicly disclosed; BD said it sits within its existing product-litigation reserve and pays out over a multi-year structure, with individual plaintiff opt-ins required. (Media estimates of >$1B were not verifiable from a fetchable primary source, so no amount is reported.)aboutlawsuits.com · Oct 2, 2024
  15. Third MDL 2846 bellwether (Stinson v. Bard, PerFix Plug): jury found Bard liable on failure to warn, strict liability and negligence and awarded $500,000 in compensatory damages; no punitive damages. Stinson's mesh was implanted in 2015 and removed in 2017 after it 'curled up in a ball of scarred tissue.'aboutlawsuits.com · Nov 9, 2023
  16. Second MDL 2846 bellwether (Milanesi v. Bard, Ventralex): S.D. Ohio jury awarded $255,000 — $250,000 on negligent design defect plus $5,000 loss of consortium — while rejecting strict liability, failure-to-warn, misrepresentation and gross-misconduct claims. First plaintiff win in the MDL.aboutlawsuits.com · Apr 15, 2022
  17. First MDL 2846 bellwether (Johns v. Bard, Ventralight ST) ended in a complete defense verdict in the S.D. Ohio before Judge Sargus; the jury found for Bard on all counts, and Judge Sargus denied the plaintiff's new-trial motion on Dec 21, 2021. Fetched source confirms 'defense verdict in September 2021'; day-level date per trial coverage.aboutlawsuits.com · Sep 8, 2021
  18. Australian TGA Physiomesh hazard alert, June9,2016

Checked against 14 primary sources by People's Justice editors · Updated

How we make money

People's Justice research team · Updated Oct 4, 2026