Ethicon Physiomesh Flexible Composite Hernia Mesh
The Ethicon Physiomesh MDL was centralized in the Northern District of Georgia in 2017 before Judge Richard W. Story to coordinate claims over a laparoscopic composite hernia mesh product that Ethicon, a Johnson & Johnson subsidiary, voluntarily withdrew from the market in 2016 after data suggested higher rates of hernia recurrence and reoperation compared to other mesh products, a withdrawal itself frequently cited in the underlying claims as evidence supporting the alleged design defect.
The JPML's most recent report shows zero actions currently pending in this coordinated proceeding, against what was historically a substantial claim population. As with any docket reaching a true zero-pending status, this reflects a coordinated proceeding whose active inventory has been fully resolved, dismissed, or remanded, distinct from a docket with a small residual claim count still working through the system. That distinction matters for accurately reading this docket's current relevance: a litigation's public profile, especially one tied to a well-publicized product withdrawal, can continue to suggest ongoing activity well after its coordinated MDL phase has effectively concluded.
For anyone assessing hernia mesh litigation broadly, this docket is a useful reminder that the product category spans multiple distinct MDLs, different manufacturers, different mesh designs, and different procedural postures and endpoints, rather than a single undifferentiated litigation. Physiomesh's voluntary 2016 market withdrawal and this docket's current zero-pending status distinguish it clearly from other, still-active hernia mesh dockets.
Criterica Intelligence's platform tracks each hernia mesh MDL, and every other active or concluded federal MDL, on its own actual procedural facts rather than treating an entire product category as a single structural story.
Ethicon voluntarily withdrew the product in 2016 after data suggested higher rates of hernia recurrence and reoperation compared to other mesh products, a withdrawal the underlying claims frequently cite as supporting the alleged design-defect theory.
It indicates the coordinated proceeding's historical claim population has been fully resolved, dismissed, or remanded, meaning the MDL's active pretrial phase has effectively concluded rather than simply narrowed to a small remaining group.
No — hernia mesh litigation is split across multiple separate MDLs by manufacturer and product design. Physiomesh is a distinct docket with its own defect theory, history, and, now, its own concluded procedural status.
In principle, yes, if new related actions were filed and transferred in, but nothing in the current facts indicates that has happened.
Statistics shown reflect historical or illustrative model outputs derived from real case data. They are not predictions or guarantees of any individual outcome. Litigation results depend on facts, jurisdiction, judge, and counsel, and vary case by case. Model accuracy is subject to selection effects and changing legal dynamics.