Products Liability Law Reporter

After Patricia Mesigian, 64, was diagnosed as having pelvic organ prolapse, she was implanted with the Prolift Pelvic Floor Repair System. After the procedure, she experienced recurrent vaginal mesh erosions, resulting in persistent vaginal bleeding, pain with intercourse, urinary tract infections, stress urinary incontinence, and urinary frequency. She underwent five revision surgeries but has a poor prognosis in that complete removal of the mesh is impossible. As a result, her pain and bleeding has continued.

Mesigian and her husband sued Johnson & Johnson and Ethicon Inc., alleging that the Prolift device was defective under the consumer-expectation and risk-utility tests and that the defendants failed to adequately warn her about the risks of the Prolift. Among other things, the plaintiffs asserted that the testing on the Prolift was inadequate and that Ethicon had ignored concerns about mesh shrinkage leading to pelvic pain and pain with intercourse. The plaintiffs’ experts argued that non-absorbable, synthetic, polypropylene mesh, such as the Prolift, causes an intense foreign body reaction in pelvic tissue and, therefore, there is no way to safely implant these products into a woman’s pelvic tissue without an increased risk of serious complications.

Suit did not claim medical expenses or lost income.

The jury awarded over $80 million, including $50 million in punitive damages to Mesigian and $25,000 to her husband. Posttrial motions are pending.

Citation: Mesigian v. Ethicon Inc., No. 140200399 (Pa. Ct. Com. Pl. Phila. Cnty. May 17, 2019).

Plaintiff counsel: AAJ members Thomas R. Kline, Kila B. Baldwin, Michael A. Trunk, Christine V. Clarke, and Philip M. Pasquarello, all of Philadelphia.