Close Menu

Bard Sling and Mesh Lawsuits 


2024 – We are accepting Bard hernia mesh, sling and pelvic mesh removal or revision cases.

Bard Hernia Mesh MDL Status

Jury Verdicts from $0 – $4.8 Million

Bard Sling and Mesh Lawsuits 

We are accepting Bard hernia mesh removal or revision cases.

Bard hernia mesh cases are ordered to mediation by the U.S. District Judge presiding over Bard Hernia Mesh MDL  The cases will begin mediation during the Spring of 2024. The purpose of these mediations is to negotiate a global settlement that will resolve thousands of claims on the docket. To date, the Defendants have not offered to settle large numbers of cases so they are still waiting on the court’s docket to be tried. The judge has signaled that if mediation does not resolve the cases, they will be transferred to other courts.

Close to 21,000 product liability lawsuits have been filed against C.R. Bard throughout the federal court system, each involving similar allegations that users suffered painful and debilitating injuries caused by design defects associated with various polypropylene products sold in recent years, including the Bard Ventralight, Bard Ventralex, Bard Perfix Plug, Bard 3DMax, and other similar systems.

As the hernia mesh lawsuits involve common questions of law and similar injuries, the litigation is centralized before U.S. District Judge Edmund A. Sargus in the Southern District of Ohio.  The MDL was created in August 2018, where the parties have conducted three bellwether trials to help determine how juries view evidence and testimony that may be repeated throughout the claims. The verdicts in the Bard hernia mesh trials ranged from $0 to $4.8 million for the plaintiffs.  One case was tried in Rhode Island state court, outside of the MDL. These cases are summarized below.

Mediation Process

The Bard Hernia Mesh MDL judge appointed a special master to work out a settlement agreement for the Bard hernia mesh cases. Each case is reviewed by a medical team, product liability lawyers and evaluated on the medical evidence contained in the medical records and product manufacturer’s reports. A range of values based on previous jury verdicts will be analyzed to determine the amount that each client will receive as a settlement offer. This is the customary method approved by judges in medical product liability lawsuits. No settlement will be made unless the client approves of the offer and advice of medical legal product liability counsel. If the client does not agree to the settlement offered, the case will proceed to trial if approved by the judge.

Bard Pelvic Mesh Multicounty Litigation (MCL) pending and future cases were transferred to Bergen Vicinage Superior Court Judge Gregg A. Padovano on June 1, 2023. The order was signed on April 5th, 2023 by the Chief Justice of the New Jersey Supreme Court.

$500,000 Hernia Mesh Verdict

November 2023: A jury awarded $500,000 to Aaron Stinson, who was implanted with a XL PerFix Plug          during a right inguinal hernia repair and injured when the mesh balled up in his groin causing severe pain. The surgeon removed portions of the mesh, then repaired with a Bard Marlex mesh. (Bard Hernia Mesh MDL – Ohio Court)

$4.8 Million Hernia Mesh Verdict

August 2022: A $4.8 million jury verdict was awarded to Paul Trevino, who was implanted with and injured by a Bard Ventralex hernia mesh. The mesh burrowed into Paul’s tissue, causing severe pain and inflammation, resulting in additional surgeries to remove and revise the hernia mesh. (Rhode Island Court)

$225,000 Hernia Mesh Verdict

April 2022: A $225,000 jury verdict was awarded to Antonio Milanesi, who was implanted with and injured by a Bard Ventralex hernia mesh. The mesh was implanted during a hernia repair in 2007. Later, he developed an infection and bowel abscess caused by the mesh, requiring additional surgeries. (Bard Hernia Mesh MDL – Ohio Court)

$0 Hernia Mesh Verdict

 July 2021: A jury awarded nothing to Steven Johns, who claimed injuries after he was implanted with a Bard Ventralex ST mesh. (Bard Hernia Mesh MDL – Ohio Court)

Bard Sling and Mesh Verdicts

Jury TVM Verdicts from $0 – $68 Million

Since 2011, we have successfully prosecuted cases for women implanted with transvaginal mesh products. Women implanted with sling and pelvic mesh products claim that the vaginal mesh devices are defective and cause serious health issues, including:

  • Vaginal mesh erosion: polypropylene mesh can break down, leaving the mesh exposed to protrude through the vagina.
  • Erosion of mesh into other organs: polypropylene mesh may erode into the urethra, bladder or rectum.
  • Vaginal mesh contraction: polypropylene mesh shortens and tightens to cause vaginal tissue pain.
  • Pain during sexual intercourse
  • Urinary problems
  • Infections
  • Bleeding
  • Reoccurrence
  • Emotional issues
  • Chronic pain
  • Fistulas
  • Organ perforation
  • Incontinence
  • Pelvic nerve damage

Pelvic mesh and bladder sling problems have been reported by major medical clinics for decades. Major medical clinics and university affiliated medical institutions, including the Cleveland Clinic, have published articles and treatise for your review on Mesh Problems and Complications

Bard Pelvic Mesh Products

Bard pelvic mesh products are no longer being sold in the medical device market. We are reviewing cases involving Bard pelvic mesh products that required surgical revision or removal including:

  • Align Transobturator Urethral Sling
  • Avaulta Anterior BioSynthetic Support
  • Avaulta Posterior BioSynthetic Support
  • Avaulta Plus Anterior BioSynthetic Support
  • Avaulta Plus Posterior BioSynthetic Support
  • Avaulta Solo Anterior Synthetic Support
  • Avaulta Solo Posterior Synthetic Support
  • InnerLace BioUrethral Support System
  • Pelvicol Acellular Collagen Matrix
  • PelviLace BioUrethral Support System
  • PelviLace TO Trans-obturator BioUrethral Support
  • PelviSoft Acellular Collagen BioMesh
  • Pelvitex Polypropylene Mesh
  • Uretex SUP Pubourethral Sling
  • Uretex TO Transobturator Urethral Sling
  • Uretex TO2 Transobturator Urethral Sling
  • Uretex TO3 Transobturator Urethral Sling

Contact us now for a free medical legal consultation about your Bard pelvic mesh product at 1-800-814-4540. There are deadlines in each state and hospitals destroy medical record evidence after a certain time period, so contact us now.

Pelvic Mesh Verdicts

Bard verdicts, settlements, manufacturers, products, and jurisdictions are in bold. Note that verdicts are appealed by the losing party and are reversed, remanded, reduced or settle for much lesser amounts.

  1. 7/12: $5.5 million – Christine Scott – C.R. Bard (Avaulta Plus) – CA
  2. 2/13: $11.11 million – Linda Gross – Ethicon/JJ (Prolift) – NJ
  3. 8/13: $2 million – Donna Cisson – C.R. Bard (Avaulta) – MDL WV
  4. 2/14: $0 – Carolyn Lewis – Ethicon/JJ (TVT-O) – MDL WV
  5. 4/14: $1.2 million – Linda Batiste – Ethicon/JJ (TVT-O) – TX
  6. 7/14: $0 – Diane Albright – Boston Scientific (Pinnacle) – MA
  7. 8/14: $0 – Maria Cardenas – Boston Scientific (Obtryx) – MA
  8. 9/14: $3.27 million – Jo Huskey – Ethicon/JJ (TVT-O) – MDL WV
  9. 9/14: $73.465 million – Martha Salazar – Boston Scientific (Obtryx) – TX
  10. 11/14: $6.7+ million – Amal Eghnayem – Boston Scientific (Pinnacle) – MDL FL
  11. 11/14: $6.7+ million – Margarita Dotres – Boston Scientific (Pinnacle) – MDL FL
  12. 11/14: $6.7+ million – Mania Nunez – Boston Scientific (Pinnacle) – MDL FL
  13. 11/14: $6.5+ million – Juana Betancourt – Boston Scientific (Pinnacle) – MDL FL
  14. 11/14: $5.25 million – Jeanie Blankenship – Boston Scientific (Obtryx) – MDL WV
  15. 11/14: $4.75 million – Chris Wilson – Boston Scientific (Obtryx) – MDL
  16. 11/14: $4.25 million – Carol Campbell – Boston Scientific (Obtryx) – MDL
  17. 11/14: $4.25 million – Jacquelyn Tyree – Boston Scientific (Obtryx) – MDL
  18. 2/15: Settled – Wise v. Bard –  MDL
  19. 3/15: Settled – Bellew v. Ethicon (Prolift) – MDL;
  20. 5/15: Settled – Sanchez v. Boston Scientific (Pinnacle) – CA
  21. 3/15: $5.7 million – Coleen Perry – Ethicon/JJ Abbrevo sling – CA
  22. 5/15: $100 million – Deborah Barda v. Boston Scientific (Pinnacle/AdvFit) – DL
  23. 10/15: $0 – Carol Cavness v. Ethicon/JJ (Prosima) – TX
  24. 10/15: $0 – Martha Carlson v. Boston Scientific (Uphold) – NC
  25. 12/15: $12.5 million – Hammons v. Ethicon/JJ (Prolift) – PA
  26. 2/16: $0 – Sherrer v. Boston Scientific (Solyx) and Bard (Align) – MO
  27. 2/16: $13.5 – Carlino v. Ethicon/JJ (TVT) – PA
  28. 4/17: $20.0 million – Engleman v. Ethicon/JJ (TVT Secur) – PA
  29. 5/17: $2.16 million – Betz v. Ethicon/JJ (Prolift) – PA
  30. 9/17: $57.1 million – Ebaugh v. Ethicon/JJ (TVT-Secur) – PA
  31. 3/18: $35 million – Kaiser v. Ethicon/JJ (Prolift) – IN
  32. 4/18: $68 million – McGinnis v. Bard (Align and Avaulta) – NJ
  33. 1/19: $41 million – Emmett v. Ethicon/JJ (Gynemesh/Prolift/TVT-O) – PA
  34. 4/19: $120 million – McFarland v. Ethicon/JJ (TVT-O) – PA
  35. 5/19: $80+ million – Mesigian v. Ethicon/JJ (Prolift) – PA
  36. 6/19: $500,000 – Dunfee v. Ethicon/JJ (Prolift) – PA
  37. 3/22: 0 – McBroom v. Ethicon/JJ (Prolift, TVT-Secur) – AZ
  38. 3/22: 0 – Shears v. Ethicon/JJ (TVT) – WV
  39. 4/22: $2.5 million – Redding v. Coloplast (Novasilk) – FL
  40. 7/22: 0 – Burris v. Ethicon/JJ (Prolift, TVT-Secur) – OH
  41. 10/22: 0 – Jarrett v. Ethicon/JJ (TVT-O) – AR
  42. 10/22: 0 – Richards v. Ethicon/JJ (TVT-O) – TX
  43. 12/22: 0 – Snowden v. Ethicon/JJ (Abbrevo) – TX
  44. 5/23:   0 – Dandy v. Ethicon/JJ (TVT-O) – NJ


FDA Warnings

July 2011: An FDA Safety Communication identified concerns and issued new recommendations on surgical mesh for transvaginal repair of Pelvic Organ Prolapse (POP).

September 2011: The FDA convened a public meeting of the Obstetrics and Gynecology Devices Panel to discuss the benefits and risks of the mesh use. The FDA issued 131 orders to conduct post market surveillance studies (PMAs) to 34 manufacturers of surgical mesh for transvaginal repair of POP. Most manufacturers elected to stop marketing surgical mesh.

January 2016: The FDA completed its reclassification of surgical mesh for transvaginal repair of POP into the highest risk class of devices (class III), which requires premarket approval (PMA) applications, the agency’s most stringent device review pathway, in order to stay on the market.

July 5, 2018:  Manufacturers that did not file PMAs for their POP mesh by this deadline had to withdraw their products from the market.

February 12, 2019: The FDA convened an advisory committee meeting to share the available evidence and seek expert opinions on how to evaluate the risks and benefits of these devices. Boston Scientific filed two PMAs for its devices, the Uphold LITE Vaginal Support System and the Xenform Soft Tissue Repair System. Coloplast filed a PMA for its device, Restorelle DirectFix Anterior.

In February 2019, the FDA convened a panel of experts and agreed with their recommendations, but the FDA decided not to approve Pelvic Organ Prolapse devices. Even though these products can no longer be used in patients, Boston Scientific and Coloplast are required to continue follow up of the subjects already enrolled in their 522 studies.

Since 2019, some of the Bard mesh products had been removed from the market and are no longer being implanted in women. However, thousands of women have the Bard products – Align,  Avaulta PlusTM, BioSynthetic Support System, Avaulta Solo Synthetic Support System, Faslata® Allograft, Pelvicol® Tissue, PelviSoft® Biomesh, Pelvitex Polypropylene Mesh implanted and are still indwelling. Many ladies may experience complications and their surgeons advise that they have the implant surgically removed or revised.

Call us for your free medical legal consultation at 1-800-814-4540 or fill out the Contact Us Form and tell us about your claim.

Share This Page:
Facebook Twitter LinkedIn