Close Menu

Hernia Mesh Lawsuits

Update 2022 – We are accepting hernia mesh removal/revision cases.

4/22 $225,000 was awarded to a plaintiff injured by a Bard hernia mesh. Hernia Mesh lawsuits are filed against mega medical device manufacturers, Bard/Davol, Ethicon/Johnson and Johnson, Atrium Medical, Covidien and other medical device manufacturers. The litigation of the Hernia Mesh cases centers around the complications associated with the mesh products. Five different medical device manufacturers are entangled in the litigation involving thirty products.

Contact us to find out which company manufactured your implant before your time runs out or your evidence is destroyed. We have successfully litigated against these same companies in Transvaginal Mesh Litigation and know the science and research plus witnessed the injuries caused. Hernia mesh complications include:

  • Chronic Pain,
  • Abscesses,
  • Infections.
  • Adhesions to the bowel;
  • Bowel blockages,
  • Perforation of organs and tissues,
  • Fistulas (holes or sinus tract),
  • Erosion of the mesh,
  • Hernia recurrence,
  • Mesh shrinkage;
  • Mesh migration;
  • Mesh contracture;
  • Hernia recurrence (as a result of migration and/or contracture);
  • Mesh rupture and failure;
  • Wound dehiscence (separation of the tissues) 

Since 2012, there have been over thirty – six verdicts and thousands of settlements in pelvic mesh and bladder slings, but no verdicts in favor of the hernia mesh plaintiffs to date. Most of the pelvic mesh cases involved multiple surgeries and numerous serious injuries with punitive awards.  Note that jury awards are often reduced or reversed after trial and the majority of settlements are less than the jury awards

A chronology of the verdicts, settlements, manufacturers, products, and jurisdictions for pelvic mesh and bladder sling cases follows:

  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 in the MDL
  19. 3/15: Settled – Bellew v. Ethicon (Prolift) in the 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 and Advantage Fit – 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/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 – NJ
  33. 1/19: $41 million – Emmett v. Ethicon/JJ – PA *
  34. 4/19: $120 million – McFarland v. Ethicon/JJ – PA *
  35. 5/19: $80+ million – Mesigian v. Ethicon/JJ – PA *
  36. 6/19: $500,000 – Dunfee v. Ethicon/JJ (Prolift) – PA *

Many of the medical device manufacturers involved in the pelvic mesh lawsuits are involved in the hernia mesh litigation. Links to the litigation include the following:

Ethicon Physiomesh

Ethicon Physiomesh Flexible Composite Mesh cases are consolidated in MDL 2782 before Judge Richard Story in Georgia Federal Court and in New Jersey state court: In RE: Ethicon Physiomesh Flexible Composite Hernia Mesh.

There are thousands of filed cases but no bellwether trials have been conducted during the Covid-19 pandemic. There are also cases filed in New Jersey state court.

 Bard/Davol Hernia Mesh

Davol, Inc./C.R. Bard, Inc. Polypropylene Hernia Mesh Products Liability Litigation in MDL 2846 before Chief Judge Edmund Sargus of Columbus, Ohio: MULTIDISTRICT LITIGATION 2846 | Southern District of Ohio 

Bard/Davol previously had a consolidated state court MDL in Rhode Island, which settled for $184 million in 2011.

Atrium C-Qur Mesh

Atrium C-Qur Mesh Cases are consolidated in MDL 2783 in New Hampshire Federal court before Chief Judge Landya B. McCafferty: Atrium Medical Corp. C-Qur Mesh Products Liability Litigation

Proceed Surgical Mesh

Proceed Surgical Mesh and Ventral Patch Litigation is centralized in New Jersey Superior Court: Proceed Surgical Mesh/Proceed Ventral Patch – NJ Courts

Manufacturers and Mesh Products

Bard /Davol Mesh

Bard offered $184 million to settle 2,600 Kugel patch lawsuits over injuries in June 2011. CR Bard/Davol Mesh leads the hernia mesh market in the United States. MDL 2846 Davol, Inc./C.R. Bard, Inc. Polypropylene Hernia Mesh Products Liability Litigation before Chief Judge Edmund Sargus of Columbus, Ohio.  There are close to 3000 cases pending. The Bard/Davol mesh products we are currently pursuing for acceptance criteria include:

  • PerFix Plug: 
  • PerFix Light Plug
  • 3DMax Mesh
  • 3DMax Light Mesh
  • Bard (Marlex) Mesh Dart
  • Marlex (AKA Flat Mesh; Bard Mesh)
  • Bard Mesh
  • Sperma-Tex
  • Visilex
  • Kugel Hernia Patch
  • Modified Kugel Hernia Patch
  • Composix Kugel Hernia Patch
  • Composix
  • Composix E/X
  • Composix L/P
  • Ventralex Hernia Patch
  • Ventrio Patch
  • Sepramesh IP
  • Ventralex ST Patch
  • Ventrio ST
  • Ventralight ST

Johnson and Johnson/Ethicon Mesh

Johnson and Johnson/Ethicon Physiomesh Flexible Composite Mesh coated with a gel film was recalled after an alarming rate of complications.  Lawsuits are consolidated into MDL 2782 before Judge Richard Story in Georgia Federal Court with over 2230 cases pending. The first trial is set for January 2020.  ETHICON PHYSIOMESH FLEXIBLE COMPOSITE HERNIA MESH .  There are also cases pending consolidated in New Jersey state court. Ethicon’s own medical safety team initiated a product recall in response to the complications documented with Physiomesh. The Ethicon products we are currently pursuing for acceptance criteria in litigation include:

  • Proceed Ventral Patch

  • Proceed Surgical Mesh

  • Prolene Hernia System

  • Prolene 3D

  • Physiomesh

    Atrium C-Qur Hernia Mesh

Atrium C-Qur Edge Mesh, was recalled by the FDA on February 3, 2015, alleging that Atrium introduced adulterated medical devices into interstate commerce.   Over 1450 lawsuits are consolidated in MDL 2783 in New Hampshire federal court before Judge Landya B. McCafferty.  Trials are set for February 2020. Despite the warnings, the manufacturer continued to introduce products for use in hernia repair, chest wall reconstruction and treatment of wounds. The products were are pursuing for revision acceptance criteria include:

    • C-Qur

    • C-Qur Mosaic

    • C-Qur Edge

    • C-Qur TacShield

    • C-Qur Lite Mesh V-Patch

    • C-Qur Mesh V-Patch

    • Atrium C-Qur FX Mesh (C-Qur Lite)

    • Atrium C-Qur Centrifx

Covidien

Covidien (acquired by Medtronic in 2015) manufactured multiple products varying in design, pore size, polypropylene or polyester composition, gel layers and microgrips. Many are associated with infections due to a college covering, adhesions, pain, bowel obstruction, tearing at edges, swelling, fixation failures, tearing, ripping, fixation issues, recurrence, foreign body presence. Products we are reviewing for acceptance criteria with revision include:

  • Parietex

  • Parietex Composite Ventral Patch

  • Parietex ProGrip Self-Fixating Mesh

  • Parietex Optimized Composite Mesh

  • Parietex Plug and Patch System

  • Parietex Composite Open Skirt (PCO OS) Mesh

  • Parietex Optimized Open Skirt Mesh

  • Parietex Composite Parastomal (PCO PM) Mesh

  • Parietex Composite Hiatal Mesh (PCO 2H)

  • Parietex Hydrophilic Anatomical Mesh

  • Parietex Folding Mesh

  • Parietex Flat Sheet Mesh

  • Parietex Lightweight Monofilament Mesh

  • Symbotex

  • Surgipro

The lawsuits allege the manufacturers knew or should have known about the risks of injuries, yet never warned patients and the medical professionals of the dangers. Despite the alarming rates of removal and revision surgeries, infections, adhesions, intestinal blockages, perforations, the manufacturers refused to notify patients and doctors.

Hernia Mesh Implant Areas

  • Inguinal hernia,

  • Femoral hernia,

  • Umbilical hernia,

  • Incisional hernia,

  • Epigastric hernia,

  • Hiatal hernia,

  • Ventral hernia,

  • Other traumatic repairs

Deadline Alert

There are statutes of limitation in each state and hospitals destroy records after a certain time period, so contact us for a free consultation before your time runs out or your evidence is destroyed. Call 800-814-4540 or email carolyn@carolynstclair.com.

Share This Page:
Facebook Twitter LinkedIn