We have helped to secure more than $80 billion in jury verdicts and settlements since 1955.
Hernia mesh lawsuits claim hernia mesh devices suffer from poor design. Plaintiffs’ complaints say manufacturers didn’t warn medical providers about serious complications and device failures.
Our law firm is currently accepting Covidien hernia mesh lawsuits and Bard hernia mesh lawsuits. Our hernia mesh lawyers are investigating cases where people received a hernia mesh device and experienced:
Our law firm has been handling lawsuits against medical device manufacturers since 1955. Our attorneys receive recognition in Best Lawyers in America and The National Trial Lawyers Hall of Fame.
If you or a loved one suffered injuries from defective hernia mesh, let our lawyers help you. Please contact our law firm today for a free case review: (800) 277-1193 or complete the Free Case Evaluation Form below.
Our lawyers want to keep informed. Here’s the latest news in the hernia mesh litigations involving Bard, Covidien, and Ethicon:
June 2024
The parties involved in the Bard hernia mesh MDL have another important deadline approaching this month. They have until June 24 to submit either a joint proposal or separate proposals for sending cases back to different federal courts for trial.
The mass torts judge set this deadline in the event plaintiffs’ and defense attorneys can’t agree on either a global settlement or a plan to resolve a large number of claims about the Bard hernia mesh.
May 2024
The number of Bard hernia mesh cases shows no signs of stopping its climb. The JPML reports the following updates (as of May 1, 2024) to pending cases in hernia mesh multidstrict litigation:
April 2024
The month begins with continued growth in the number of pending lawsuits in each hernia mesh multidistrict litigation:
March 2024
The hernia mesh settlement mediation for the hernia mesh litigation took place.
February 2024
The MDL judge canceled the fourth Bard hernia mesh bellwether trial. The judge had set the trial for April 8, 2024. The case focused on Jacob Bryan. He suffered serious problems from a Bard 3DMax hernia mesh implant.
In a court order, Judge Sargus decided to dismiss parts of the complaint. The case can continue with claims of strict liability, negligence, gross negligence, and punitive damages. However, the court dismissed the claims of failure to warn, fraud, and breach of warranty.
Later in the month, Judge Sargus entered a settlement mediation order for polypropylene hernia mesh litigation. The mediation is to take place March 4 and March 5, 2024.
January 2024
On January 2, 2024, the JPML reports the following number of pending cases in the 3 hernia mesh MDLs:
December 2023
Johnson & Johnson and its subsidiary Ethicon settled a lawsuit involving 224 cases in Georgia. Both parties agreed to dismiss the claims, and U.S. District Judge Richard W. Story approved the settlement. Ethicon said they didn’t admit any wrongdoing and made the decision to avoid a long legal battle.
This settlement follows one of six months ago, where the companies settled with 161 plaintiffs in a different case, MDL-2782.
November 2023
In a new hernia mesh verdict, an Ohio a jury decided in favor of Plaintiff Aaron Stinson. Attorney Timothy M. O’Brien of Levin Papantonio Rafferty is one of the lawyers who represents Stinson. The bellwether trial concerned manufacturer C.R. Bard’s top-selling hernia mesh product for sports hernias: the Perfix® Plug.
Stinson alleged the polypropylene hernia mesh implant he had received in 2015 stuck to his tissues. The Complaint stated Stinson suffered lifelong injuries, pain, suffering, emotional distress, and lost wages. The jury awarded Stinson $500,000. Stinson emerged the winner on several claims, including:
October 2023
The third bellwether trial in the hernia mesh MDL began in the case of Stinson v. Davol, et al. (2:18-cv-01022). In 2015, Plaintiff Aaron Stinson underwent a right inguinal hernia repair. Surgeons implanted a Bard PerFix device.
Stinson experienced chronic pain in the area of the implan. tIn 2017, doctors performed exploratory surgery to check the source of this pain. Physicians discovered the mesh implant had curled into a ball and scarred internal tissue. The surgeon removed the mesh, but the pain has persisted.
September 2023
The judge in the hernia mesh multidistrict litigation issued a new Case Management Order. Per the order, the third bellwether trial of Stinson v. Davol, Inc., et al, will commence on October 16, 2023. The court slated the fourth bellwether trial, Bryan v. C.R. Bard Inc., et al, for early 2024.
Hernia mesh lawsuits happen when patients sues mesh manufacturers. The plaintiffs allege they suffered complications and injuries after the mesh devices failed. According to complaints, the defendants’ mesh suffered from poor design. The complaints further accuse manufacturers of not properly warning patients about the risks and side effects.
Right now, tens of thousands of lawsuits are pending against different hernia mesh companies. The Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation has grouped most of these legal claims together in federal court.
Manufacturers facing mass tort lawsuits for their hernia mesh products include:
Some of these hernia mesh devices have been recalled. Other hernia mesh products are still in use.
The following hernia mesh multidistrict litigations are pending:
Covidien – MDL No. 3029 – IN RE: Covidien Hernia Mesh Products Liability Litigation No. II
In June 2022, the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation created MDL 3029. The panel assigned Judge Patti B. Saris from the District of Massachusetts to oversee this case. Chief Magistrate Judge M. Page Kelley will also be working on MDL 3029.
Covidien is the only major mesh manufacturer that uses polyester for their mesh. “Polyester is the worst permanent implant material you could put in a patient’s body,” said Attorney Tim O’Brien, a lawyer from Levin Papantonio Rafferty. O’Brien is leading the Covidien MDL with Kelsey Stokes.
Davol/C.R. Bard – MDL No. 2846 – IN RE: Davol, Inc./C.R. Bard, Inc., Polypropylene Hernia Mesh Products Liability Litigation
On August 2, 2018, the JPML transferred certain lawsuits to the District Court Southern District of Ohio to be overseen by Honorable Edmund A. Sargus, Jr. The lawsuits allege that defects in Bard’s polypropylene hernia mesh can lead to complications when implanted in patients. Possible complications include adhesions, damage to organs, inflammatory and allergic responses, and others.
Ethicon – MDL No. 2782 – IN RE: Ethicon Physiomesh Flexible Composite Hernia Mesh Products Liability Litigation
The Honorable Richard W. Story presides over this MDL in the U.S. District Court Northern District of Georgia. The products of issue are Ethicon’s PHYSIOMESH mesh devices.
Many hernia mesh devices use materials that shrink, contract, harden, migrate, or fail. Resulting injuries include nerve damage, bowel damage, and the need for further surgery.
Court documents show that hernia mesh manufacturers are advertising their products for unnecessary uses. These include repairing small hernias doctors could treat with laparoscopic surgery and stitches.
The FDA reports multiple risks of surgical mesh in hernia repair surgery. Here are some common issues and complications with hernia mesh that have prompted lawsuits:
Many other complications can stem from hernia mesh device failure. These include:
If you or a loved one were injured by defective hernia mesh, our lawyers are here to help. Contact our law firm today for a free case review at (800) 277-1193 or fill out the Free Case Evaluation Form below.
Abdominal wall hernias often require surgical correction. A surgeon can typically repair a hernia without the use of a mesh product. Also, the surgeon can use a material that poses less risks than many synthetic products currently on the market.
Many manufacturers rushed their synthetic hernia mesh productsto the market using the FDA’s 510k clearance process. Companies manufactured and marketed the devices with little to no studies as to their safety. Since then, manufacturers have silently withdrawn many of these devices. In some cases, the mesh devices have been recalled.
These problematic hernia mesh devices contain design defects and undisclosed or under-disclosed risks, such as:
If you received a hernia mesh implant, watch for these signs and symptoms:
If you experience these symptoms, immediately report them to your treating physician. Hernia mesh complications can occur within days to years following a hernia mesh implant.
Your healthcare provider should keep the hernia mesh and tissue after removing it from your body. This is an important piece of evidence in your case.
Your healthcare provider can learn more about this procedure by contacting a hernia mesh lawyer.
If you have suffered injuries because of a hernia mesh, our law firm will review the details of your case. Compensation and the amount of a settlement or verdict depend on multiple factors. Types of damages you could collect include:
Hernia mesh lawsuits represent one of the largest mass tort litigations in U.S. history. While many of these cases are still active, some settlement agreements have occurred.
In 2011, C.R. Bard settled 3,000 cases over its Kugel Mesh for $184 million. The FDA had recalled that device in 2005, 2006, and 2007. However, law firms continued to file lawsuits against Bard and its subsidiary DaVol for several years.
In June 2017, a federal judge dismissed several of the cases. The judge ruled that all claims against Bard had been settled for an undisclosed amount.
Similar to the hernia mesh lawsuits, people filed thousands of claims against manufacturers of a vaginal mesh medical device. The purpose of this product was to treat women who were experiencing incontinence. Over time, the device began to erode inside the patient’s body. This caused chronic pain, organ damage, and repeat surgeries.
More than 100,000 lawsuits were filed against the transvaginal mesh manufacturers. This litigation resulted in $3 billion in settlements.
From 2005-2007, C.R. Bard issued several recalls involving its Kugel Mesh product. The recalls related to a problem associated with potential bowel tears. Most of the hernia mesh recalls have been Class 2 recalls. This means the side effects were temporary or could be treated.
However, the C.R. Bard Kugel patch had a Class 1 recall. This means it posed serious health risks and could be deadly.
In 2012, the FDA sent Atrium a warning over its failure to respond and address numerous complaints of infections due from the C-QUR. In 2015, a federal judge issued an injunction, prohibiting Atrium from manufacturing and distributing the product.
Each year, surgeons perform approximately one million hernia repair surgeries in the United States. According to the FDA, most hernia repair surgeries use surgical mesh, made from either synthetic or animal tissue.
A key concern with hernias is strangulation. This happens when an organ pushes through the abdominal wall or tissue, blocking blood supply to an organ. Surgeons often use hernia mesh in hernia repair procedures to prevent reocurring hernias. The devices reinforce the area where a hernia is protruding.
Surgeons use these devices in the repair of various types of hernias. Medline Plus outlines the types of hernias, based on their location:
Manufacturers construct hernia mesh from either synthetic or animal tissue. Hernia mesh products consist of absorbable or non-absorbable material.
Numerous studies and FDA reports have discussed hernia mesh implants, their effectiveness, and adverse outcomes from implants.
Hernia Surgical Mesh Implants
Hernias have a high rate of recurrence. Surgeons often use surgical mesh to strengthen the hernia repair and reduce the risk. Still, in some situations, using surgical mesh for hernia repair may not be recommended.
Comparison of Two Mesh/Fixation Concepts for Laparoscopic Ventral and Incisional Hernia Repair
This was a randomized controlled trial comparing two systems of mesh and fixation for laparoscopic ventral and incisional hernia repair. Researches terminated the study early upon noticing a high recurrence rate.
Comparison of outcomes of synthetic mesh vs suture repair of elective primary ventral herniorrhaphy
Mesh repair has a small reduction in recurrence rates compared with suture repairs for primary ventral hernias. However, mesh shows an increased risk of seroma and surgical site infections.
Long-term Recurrence and Complications Associated With Elective Incisional Hernia Repair
Researchers found sutured repair posed a higher risk of repoeration for recurrence over 5 years (compared with open mesh and laparoscopic mesh repair) among patients undergoing incisional repair. However, in long-term follow-up, these benefits of mesh are offset in part by mesh-related complications.
Ventral hernia repair with synthetic, composite, and biologic mesh: characteristics, indications, and infection profile
Prosthetic mesh devices comprise three main types:
Prospective Study Of A Size Tailored Approach to Repair Umbilical And Epigastric Primary Ventral Hernias
Primary ventral hernias, (umbilical and epigastric hernias, for example) primarily use mesh for abdominal wall reinforcement. Mesh-devices using a dual-sided mesh technology exist for the specific indication of small ventral hernias. This study was to determine the best size hernia meshes to use in different situations. However, researchers terminated the study after noting an abnormally high rate of infections.
Complications of mesh devices for intraperitoneal umbilical hernia repair: a word of caution
“We have seen several patients with serious late complications of these meshes placed intraperitoneally. Some of these patients needed small bowel resection and mesh removal. Others developed a recurrence because of improper deployment of the mesh in the intraperitoneal position.”
Our law firm will investigate your claim, calculate your damages, and fight to get you the compensation you deserve.
If you or a loved one suffered injuries from defective hernia mesh, our lawyers can help. Reach out to our law firm today for a free case review by calling (800) 277-1193 or filling out the Free Case Evaluation Form below.
By clicking the "I agree" and "Submit for Free Evaluation" buttons, I agree to the POLICIES AND DISCLAIMERS, including arbitration provision therein, and consent to receive marketing emails, calls and/or texts, including those made using an automated system and/or artificial/prerecorded voice messages, from or on behalf of Levin Papantonio regarding their services in response to my inquiry at the telephone number(s) provided above, even if currently listed on any state, federal or corporate Do Not Call registry. I understand my consent to receive automated marketing calls/texts is not required as a condition of purchasing any services. However, if I do not consent, then I must call the law firm directly at 800-277-1193 in order to obtain services. I can revoke my consent at any time.
Levin Law