Lawsuit Information Center
C.R. Bard is defending over 18,000 hernia mesh lawsuits, which allege that its mesh devices were defective, resulting in injuries and complications for thousands of patients undergoing hernia surgery. Most of these lawsuits have now been joined in the Bard hernia mesh settlement, although new claims continue to come to our office virtually every day.
Our hernia mesh lawyers are handling these claims in all 50 states. We are still taking new claims. This page will provide the latest news and updates on the hernia mesh litigation, as well as information regarding the settlement value of these cases.
Call our lawyers at 800-553-8082 for a free consultation or reach out online.
Hernia Mesh Lawsuit News and Updates
Before we get to the nuts and bolts of the various class action hernia mesh lawsuits against Bard, let’s start with what most of you are coming to the website for – to get the latest news and updates in the hernia mesh litigation.
October 2, 2025 Update
There are 24,004 claims now pending in the MDL. The lion’s share of these plaintiffs are waiting to receive a settlement check.
September 5, 2025 Update
MDL 2846 is now at 24,026 individual cases. Post settlement, we are still reviewing new claims.
September 1, 2025 Update
The court in MDL-2846 has moved into execution mode: a Qualified Settlement Fund (QSF) has officially been established to manage payouts under the class-wide settlement framework.
Funds are now deposited into a dedicated escrow account overseen by Wells Fargo and administered by appointed special masters and lien administrators. This structure is critical for untangling Medicare/Medicaid liens and managing structured settlements—work that lies behind the scenes but will directly influence how quickly and efficiently plaintiffs are paid.
June 12, 2025 Update
The Bard Hernia Mesh multidistrict litigation (MDL 2846) saw a small dip in active cases over the past month, with 24,074 pending as of June 1, down just four from 24,078 on May 1.
This small shift does not mean the litigation has gone quiet. Instead, it reflects the natural ebb and flow in a post-settlement landscape: some cases are being dismissed, while new ones continue to be filed. Although a major global settlement resolved a large portion of the docket last year, claims are still trickling in, particularly from individuals with delayed complications or those who opted out of the earlier deal.
This dynamic of dismissals offset by fresh filings suggests the litigation is entering its late phase, but there is still a lot of work that needs to be done to resolve all of these lawsuits. The MDL remains open to accommodate unresolved cases, and the court continues to manage this soon-to-be shrinking litigation that will still have a persistent stream of new claims.
May 29, 2025 Update
When will victims see the settlement money from the Bard hernia mesh settlement? The short answer is I don’t know. The long answer is that it is reasonable to expect/hope that some of the quick pay settlements will happen in 2025, but the more involved settlements will likely push out beyond 2025.
May 15, 2025 Update
Let’s look at the Bard hernia mesh settlement at a glance:
- Total Cases Resolved: Approximately 38,000 lawsuits
- Total Settlement Value: Estimated to exceed $1 billion
- Defendant: Becton, Dickinson and Company, parent company of C.R. Bard
- Settlement Administration: Overseen by special masters appointed by both federal and state courts
- Payment Timeline: Disbursements to begin in 2025 and are scheduled over several years
Compensation Tiers
| Settlement Option | Eligibility Criteria | Estimated Payout |
|---|---|---|
| Quick-Pay 1 | Claimants without qualifying injuries | $2,500 |
| Quick-Pay 2 | Claimants with mild to moderate injuries (e.g., single surgery) | $25,000 |
| Traditional Pay | Claimants with severe injuries (e.g., multiple surgeries, permanent disability) | $60,000 – $100,000+ |
Additional Details
- Average Settlement Range: $60,000 – $100,000, with higher amounts for severe cases
- Traditional Pay Option: Points-based system that accounts for severity of injury and other metrics that we have talked about
- Opt-Out Provision: Plaintiffs may opt out and pursue individual litigation, though trial dates may be delayed until 2029 or later
- Settlement Fund: A qualified settlement fund has been established to manage and distribute payments
May 1, 2025 Update
Even after Bard’s massive settlement last year, the MDL continues to grow. Another 411 lawsuits were filed in the past month, pushing the total to 24,078. The original settlement shut the door on new cases, and many more recent claims were not included in the settlement. There may be a second round of settlement for these claims, which will hopefully be higher than the first.
December 2, 2024 Update
A new case management order introduces the Intensive Settlement Process (ISP), a structured framework designed to resolve cases efficiently, appointing Ellen K. Reisman and John Jackson as Special Masters to oversee its implementation. These Special Masters are tasked with supervising negotiations, mediating disputes, and ensuring timely progress, reporting quarterly to the Court on the ISP’s status.
The time horizon on this will be depressing for many. The process is set to launch in January 2027, requiring plaintiffs to endure a significant delay of over two years before active settlement efforts commence. The ISP will continue until all claims are addressed, but unresolved cases by June 2029 will allow claimants to exit the process and resume litigation under docket control orders. For plaintiffs hoping for a quicker resolution or trial, this extended timeline—at lease four-and-a-half years if Bard’s offer is not nearly where you want to be—will prove deeply frustrating for many victims.
October 8, 2024 Update
The MDL judge issued an order today establishing new guidelines for cases where plaintiffs’ counsel cannot maintain communication with their clients.
The order was prompted by the recent settlement agreement in the Bard hernia mesh litigation, which has brought renewed urgency to efficiently manage the MDL’s docket. Under the new order, if plaintiffs’ counsel cannot reach their clients despite reasonable efforts, they may seek to dismiss these cases by filing a joint Stipulation of Dismissal and Notice of Withdrawal of Counsel. This streamlined process prevents further delay while still preserving the rights of the plaintiffs.
Key elements of the order include:
- Dismissal Without Prejudice: Cases dismissed under this order will be without prejudice, meaning plaintiffs have one year to refile in the MDL. The refiled case will retain its original filing date for the purposes of statute of limitations and other legal considerations.
- Counsel Withdrawal: Plaintiffs’ counsel will automatically be withdrawn from representation without further court action, relieving them of any ongoing obligations to plaintiffs they can no longer reach.
- Potential Dismissal With Prejudice: If plaintiffs do not refile within the one-year window, Defendants may request dismissal with prejudice, effectively barring plaintiffs from refiling their claims. This stipulation is designed to clear inactive cases from the docket efficiently.
- Compliance With Previous Orders: Refiled cases will be subject to all prior Case Management Orders, including the recently entered CMO No. 53, which addresses ongoing docket management, and CMO No. 52, which temporarily stayed proceedings.
If you are reading this, just make sure that whether you are happy or unhappy with the settlement, you are not breaking off communications with your lawyers. Make sure they have your contact information, etc.
I have no more information on the settlement. There is a big gathering of plaintiffs’ lawyers this week. More information is expected to come out there, and if I get news I’m allowed to share, I will.
October 2, 2024 Update
Here we are: a settlement.
How much and when will you get a settlement check? As for the “how much”, we do not know until we see the deal. In terms of when you would get a settlement check, we also… don’ t know.
The timing for receiving a settlement check from the recent Bard hernia mesh settlement can vary significantly depending on several factors, such as the complexity of the case, the number of plaintiffs, and the settlement’s payment structure. According to reports, the settlement will be paid out over a multi-year period. This means that while some plaintiffs may begin to see checks relatively soon after the settlement is finalized, soon still being 2025, and others may not receive payment until later, depending on the agreed-upon disbursement schedule.
We are still taking new cases.
We will update you in this space as soon as we have more information.
September 16, 2024 Update
We have a rare entry on the MDL docket. Attorneys for the plaintiffs are requesting the court to allow a surviving spouse to replace the deceased party as the plaintiff. The case was originally filed by the couple, but the husband unfortunately passed away after the filing.
In the broader context, we remain in the same holding pattern as before in this litigation. The judge is clearly giving the parties a long leash to fashion a settlement agreement and is not in a rush to remand these lawsuits. A response is due to the motion we discussed in the last update, and it will be interesting to see how Bard responds.
September 4, 2024 Update
This motion gains urgency due to the critical health decline of one of the plaintiffs in the wrongful death action, suffering from a renewed bout of cancer. The grave nature of this plaintiff’s health underscores the necessity for swift legal action, as there is a real possibility that they may not live to see the lawsuit through to its conclusion.
From a broader perspective, the family believes that the MDL no longer benefits their case, noting the absence of forthcoming discovery processes and the cancellation of a planned fourth bellwether trial. They highlight the extended and unsuccessful nature of the ongoing settlement discussions.
Therefore, the plaintiffs contend that returning the case to Arizona would be advantageous. It would enable them to leverage the comprehensive discovery already performed during the MDL to address their claims individually, potentially speeding up the legal proceedings and moving towards a resolution more directly.
August 20, 2024 Update
The last docket entry in this litigation was on July 24th. We are still expecting settlement news and the rumors continue to be that the parties are close.
August 5, 2024 Update
I’m sorry for the slow updates in this space. The problem is that we do not have any updates. We are still hearing the same thing in the rumor mill – settlement is coming.
It is odd to have the court approve the minutiae of a settlement without an actual, ah, settlement. But this litigation has been odd from start to finish.
When we have more information, we will provide it here.
July 5, 2024 Update
If you came here looking for news, you have news.
Two significant filings occurred today. One is a new court order that puts a stay – a pause – on all hernia mesh lawsuits in the MDL. The stay can be lifted for cases where plaintiffs opt out of the Master Settlement Agreement. Which means… presumably, there is such a settlement agreement.
Another order outlines some initial requirements for plaintiffs opting out of the settlement.
Although the settlement details have not yet leaked, the orders clearly assume we have a settlement. More information will be provided as it becomes available.
July 1, 2024 Update
For hernia mesh lawyers, June was all about hustling to get more mesh lawsuits filed. There were 745 new lawsuits added last month. The next update explains why. No one knows what the cutoff point will be for cases to make the settlement, but certainly, filed lawsuits will be included.
June 30, 2024 Update
On Friday, two law firms filed a joint motion with Bard to seal the terms of their hernia mesh settlement from the public. Their argument is that making the settlement public allows other plaintiffs’ lawyers to use it in settlement negotiations with Bard.
This development confirms what we have been telling you for the last month: some firms have reached settlements with Bard. Previously, details of these settlements were rumors until this motion put it out in the open.
Speaking of rumors, the word on the street is a larger Bard settlement is done (or virtually done, depending on who you talk to). It could be announced this week. We will keep you posted.
June 25, 2024 Update
The last docket entry in the MDL was on May 30th.
It has been quiet. Again, lots of settlement talk but nothing but rumors at this point.
May 16, 2024 Update
After a brief break, we are back to taking new Bard hernia mesh lawsuits. How much longer are we taking these cases? I have no idea. But I do not suspect it will be long. If you have a potential claim and you are sitting on the sidelines, you are making a mistake.
April 29, 2024 Update
The MDL docket is a ghost town. The last entry was on April 12th. The expectation is that a settlement announcement will be coming soon. But that is just speculation at this point.
April 5, 2024 Update
The Bard hernia mesh MDL docket is quiet. A West Virginia case was transferred into the MDL, and a lawyer withdrew from leadership, but not related to the settlement talks or anything like that. And that is it.
There are settlement rumors and talk that “something will come out soon,” but certainly nothing you can bank on at this point. Again, it is a very small group of settlement negotiators and they are doing what they are supposed to do which is keep their mouths shut about what is happening with the hernia mesh settlement.
We will keep you posted.
March 5, 2024 Update
Judge Sargus has issued an order outlining a mediation plan and schedule aimed at facilitating a settlement in the Bard hernia mesh MDL. The order schedules an in-person mediation session for March 25 and March 26, 2024 (it was originally scheduled earlier in the month). The mediator is John Jackson
If there is no settlement by May 24, 2024, the parties need so submit a plan to advance the litigation. I doubt that will be a joint plan if it comes to it. Let’s just hope these cases can get settled.
March 3, 2024 Update
There are now 21,262 filed hernia mesh lawsuits in the MDL. In terms of truly active MDLs, it ranks second only to the talc powder litigation.
February 20, 2024 Update
So the next big shot at settlement is next month. As expected, the MDL judge issued CMO #51 creating a new settlement mediation process for the litigation hernia mesh litigation.
The game plan is an person session set for March 4 and 5, 2024, with the possibility of additional meetings at the mediator’s discretion. (This has since been postponed. See the March 5th update above.)
Parties involved in the mediation must notify the court by May 24, 2024, if an impasse occurs, with a joint proposal for moving the litigation forward due by June 24, 2024. I’m assuming this means – because it has to mean – shipping these cases back to their local federal court and getting trials going.
The mediation will involve key representatives from both the plaintiffs and defendants, including a court-appointed mediator, John Jackson, and members of the Plaintiffs’ Negotiation Committee, alongside representatives with negotiating authority from the defendants’ side.
February 5, 2024 Update
CMO #50 came out on Friday, a new order that deals with two main issues: whether to let the Byran case go to trial – the fourth bellwether – and how to manage and possibly send back (remand) Bard hernia mesh lawsuits to their original courts for further proceedings.
Let’s break it down in this litigation that will never seem to end:
On Holding a Fourth Bellwether Trial
The court decided not to hold a fourth bellwether trial. The judge believes that after three trials, and considering the costs and time spent, another trial wouldn’t add much value. The cases already tried involved different legal points and devices, and another trial on a different device wouldn’t change the fundamental issues. Is this really true? The 3M earplug litigation had 16 trials. Indeed, a 5th endpoint would not be counterproductive and would keep the parties under pressure.
But I don’t get to make that call. The court feels it has learned enough from the previous trials and that trying a new case wouldn’t significantly change the understanding of the issues at hand.
The Bryan case was falling apart for the defendants because the treating doctor did not help with the warnings case. So, on some level, this is a relief. However, having no trial scheduled is just a path to more wheel-spinning.
The Future Management and Structure of Potential Remand of Cases
The plaintiffs’ lawyers are fine with remand and want an order on how the remaining cases should be managed and sent back to the courts they came from for trial.
The court denied this request, calling it premature and unreasonable. The court had hoped for a global settlement (an agreement to resolve all cases) before considering mass remanding cases. The proposal was seen as favoring plaintiffs unduly by demanding very fast-paced discovery (the process of gathering evidence) and trials, which the court found unrealistic.
But trial dates create the pressure to settle in the first place. This litigation has been going on forever, and now the cases are supposed to be settled without the pressure of trials? The judge in this case has really done an excellent job administering this litigation. But this feels like the path to nowhere. I would love to be wrong.
February 1, 2024 Update
Judge Sargus denied a motion for a new trial in Stinson yesterday.
Bard made three real arguments, and the judge rejected all three:
- Inadequacy of IFU: Defendants contended that the plaintiff failed to demonstrate that the IFU for the PerFix Plug was inadequate in warning about the device’s risks. They argued that the trial testimony did not suffice to prove inadequacy in warning about the risks associated with the device. The court, however, noted that the defendants focused more on discrediting the witnesses’ conclusions rather than addressing the sufficiency of the evidence presented. The court maintained its stance from the summary judgment phase, emphasizing that it does not weigh evidence or make credibility determinations when ruling on a motion for judgment as a matter of law.
- Causation: Defendants argued that the plaintiff did not present sufficient evidence to show that any allegedly inadequate warning caused his injuries. They relied on the learned intermediary doctrine, asserting that their duty to warn was met since the implanting surgeon, Dr. Tan, knew the risks involved. Dr. Tan testified to warning the plaintiff about potential pain and nerve damage and acknowledged being aware of the risks of fibrosis, inflammation, and long-term pain. Defendants also referenced a patient education brochure warning about similar risks, suggesting Dr. Tan was informed about the risks pertinent to the case. However, the court pointed out that during the summary judgment phase, it was established that Dr. Tan expected the IFU to warn about risks specific to the PerFix Plug, like chronic pain and mesh contraction, indicating that there was a genuine issue regarding whether the warnings were adequate and whether they contributed to the plaintiff’s injuries.
- Failure to Warn and Negligence: The jury found for the plaintiff on the negligence claim based on failure to warn, not on design defect. Defendants tried to argue that if the plaintiff’s claims failed under a strict liability theory, they should also fail under a negligence theory. However, the court did not find this argument compelling enough to revisit its summary judgment ruling, indicating that the defendants did not present any new evidence or arguments that would lead the court to alter its previous decision.
December 1, 2023 Update
A fourth bellwether trial in the Bard hernia mesh lawsuit is set to begin on April 8, 2024. This trial involves a case brought by Jacob Bryan, a Florida man who experienced complications with the Bard 3DMax hernia mesh. Bryan alleges that design defects in the mesh led to its failure, requiring surgical removal in October 2017, and resulting in permanent injuries and pain.
It would be nice to have these trials schedule back to back to put more pressure on the defendants. Bard keeps getting punched in the face and then gets to take a breath before the next one.
November 9, 2023 Update
Another plaintiffs’ verdict in Stinson: $500,000.
Bard put on great expert witnesses in Stinson. The type of witnesses that have a veneer of credibility that scares you as a plaintiff’s lawyer. The jury once again saw through all of that.
Bard has now lost three in a row:
| Plaintiff | Date | Jurisdiction | Verdict |
|---|---|---|---|
| Johns | July 2021 | MDL – Ohio | Defense |
| Milanesi | April 2022 | MDL – Ohio | $250,000 |
| Trevino | August 2022 | Rhode Island | $4,800,000 |
| Stinson | November 2023 | MDL – Ohio | $500,000 |
Johns was a loss but that was a really tough case.
The crazy part is I’m not sure Bard is unhappy with the verdict. It could have gone a lot worse: there were no punitive damages. What Bard is waiting for to make a reasonable settlement offer to resolve most of these cases is hard to discern.
What Bard really should have done is pocket the win and settle after the Johns case. Bard knew – or should have known – it was a one-off that was unlikely to be replicated. Plaintiffs expectations are higher now.
November 3, 2023 Update
We are still in the defense case in Stinson. Dr. Radke, the explanting surgeon, testified by videotape yesterday.
November 1, 2023 Update
Yesterday was all Dr. Pomerants’ testimony, continued direct, cross, and redirect. He is an important witness in this case. But I think it is unlikely the jury will think this man’s problems stem from an assault 30 years ago.
October 31, 2023 Update
The plaintiff concluded his case yesterday. The defendant began their defense, calling BJ J Pomerants, MD, who testifies that the plaintiff’s pre-implant injuries and conditions “affected how he perceives pain in his groin both before and after the implant surgery.” This is Bard’s classic defense of looking for someone or something to blame other than its product.
October 26, 2023 Update
Our prediction that Bard would come to its senses and settle Stinson did not come to pass. We are now on Day 9 of trial and expect the plaintiff to close his case this week.
What are the facts in Stinson? The plaintiff had a right inguinal hernia repair using the Extra-Large PerFix Plug mesh made by the Defendants.
Two years later, due to persistent pain in his right groin, Plaintiff had another surgery to see if the hernia had returned or if there was nerve damage.
During this surgery, his doctor discovered a significant amount of scarring and found a “large ball” about 2.5 cm in diameter of mesh that had bundled up next to a specific bone area. Removing this mesh was challenging for his surgeon due to the extensive scarring. After removing it, she used another Bard product – the Bard Marlex Mesh – to fix the hernia.
June 5, 2023 Update
Bard no longer believes Stinton should go to trial. Why? Because it says the plaintiff’s injuries have escalated to the point where it is no longer a good bellwether trial. Bard says we want to avoid a significant verdict in Stinson because that will lead to greater settlement expectations.
This is nonsense. The first two bellwether trials were not great cases for plaintiffs, so those cases could be said to be unrepresentative. This tactic coincides nicely with Bard’s strategy of prolonging the process, which aims to hold onto their capital as long as they can, hoping that persistent delays will persuade plaintiffs to settle for smaller settlement payouts when this ordeal finally resolves. Should the judge agree to postpone the Stinson trial – and the bet here is that he will not – that will cause an even greater delay in getting the next case ready for trial.
June 1, 2023 Update
As many of you reading this know all too well, mass tort lawsuits can move slowly. Some plaintiffs try to make arguments to steer clear of a class action lawsuit to pursue an independent claim. In Vaughn et al. v. Kentuckiana Surgical Specialists, P.S.C., et al., the plaintiff filed a hernia mesh lawsuit in the Western District of Kentucky to the Southern District of Ohio. She asked to stay out of the Bard MDL because the transfer would cause inconvenience to them and non-Bard healthcare defendants.
But the MDL Panel determined that the case shares common factual questions with those already transferred to MDL No. 2846 because the focus of the case is the claim that Bard’s polypropylene hernia mesh products have defects, leading to complications, such as adhesions, organ damage, and infections when implanted in patients.
May 25, 2023 Update
The Rhode Island judge in Trevino took $250,000 off the verdict but left $4.55 million intact in post-trial motions. It is hard to understand the logic behind reducing the jury’s award by even a penny after all that plaintiff has been through based on the evidence offered at trial. But in the big picture of things, the Rhode Island Superior Court judge’s ruling is a win because it leaves the lion’s share of the award intact and affirmed the key rulings that Bard had opposed.
May 13, 2023 Update
Things have been slow in the hernia mesh litigation while we wait for the Stinson trial and hope for a settlement before that. Yesterday, a new motion was filed in Stinson that revolves around the admissibility of evidence related to Mr. Stinson’s workers’ compensation claim. Bard wants to admit that there was an award and the amount of the award received by Mr. Stinson from his workers’ compensation claim be excluded.
Under the collateral source rule, the plaintiff’s counsel argues that the defendants should be barred from mentioning workers’ compensation during the trial. It is hard to imagine a scenario where the plaintiff loses this motion. The whole point of the rule is to referencing a collateral source would risk leading the jury to reduce Mr. Stinson’s damages award, assuming he had already received some compensation. Moreover, workers’ compensation claim holds no evidentiary value.ion.
March 20, 2023 Update
As predicted, a settlement appears imminent in Stinson v. C.R. Bard, slated to serve as the third test case in the C.R. Bard hernia mesh MDL on May 15, 2023. The trial has been delayed without objection from the plaintiff, which is a strong sign of settlement. has been delayed.
Despite the denial of a summary judgment motion by the defense, allowing the case to move forward, Bard’s defense team requested a postponement, which was granted by the MDL judge two days later. It is unclear when a new trial date will be set. This delay may indicate a possible settlement in the works. We will keep you updated in this space as we learn more.
March 15, 2023 Update
The Stinson trial is locked the loaded for May 15th. Plaintiff’s lawyers fought off a motion to dismiss and C.R. Bard and Davol will face most of the claims in a lawsuit filed by a Maine man who alleged that a flawed hernia mesh product caused him pain and other complications.
The suit is scheduled to be the third – we call it the fourth – bellwether trial in the multidistrict litigation, which has over 18,000 cases pending against the two companies.
Plaintiff alleges that the polypropylene used in the mesh isn’t suitable for permanent implantation and leads to complications. The judge not only allowed the plaintiff to take his design defect claim to go forward, but he also allowed the plaintiff to claim punitive damages. The court also cleared negligence and warranty claims for trial but granted judgment for the companies on other claims.
February 9, 2023 Update
In an Order issued earlier this week, the Bard MDL judge set forth a detailed schedule for the third hernia mesh bellwether test trial (Stinson v. C.R. Bard et al.). Pretrial conferences will be held on May 2nd and 3rd and the trial will begin on May 15, 2023. Final witness lists are due from both sides this month. The judge also requires lawyers for all parties to submit proposed dates for a 4th bellwether trial later in the year.
January 27, 2023 Update
This is not an update, but we wrote a status of the hernia mesh lawsuits page yesterday, looking at where we are and the settlement prospects in 2023.
January 18, 2023 Update
18,403 Bard mesh lawsuits are pending in the hernia mesh class action. That is an increase of 176 cases over the last 30 days, the most significant percentage increase of any mass tort MDL during that period. This high volume of new cases in this MDL has continued for several months as we get closer to the next bellwether trial in May.
January 2, 2022 Update
Rhode Island state court – the venue for the big Trevino verdict – continues to pile up new hernia mesh lawsuits. Twenty-three new suits against Bard were filed in Rhode Island since Christmas.
September 5, 2022 Update
One of the issues that got flushed out during the Trevino trial is that C.R. Bard used a plastic resin in its mesh products even after the plastic supplier told Bard it was not safe for that use.
This was no great revelation. But the plaintiff’s lawyers developed this issue well during the trial.
C.R. Bard used a plastic made by LyondellBasell called Pro-fax 6523 in all its hernia mesh products because it was the cheapest available material that met specifications.
Bard did this although LyondellBasell deemed Pro-fax 6523 unfit for permanent implantation inside the body and expressly prohibited buyers from using it in hernia mesh products.
That C.R. Bard knowingly ignored this is a new revelation that could swing the momentum in the C.R. Bard class action lawsuit.
August 29, 2022 Update
We have a verdict from Rhode Island: $4.8 million. Paul Trevino’s lawsuit alleged that C.R. Bard’s Ventralex hernia patch eroded into his bowel because they chose the materials they used based on price instead of safety. The jury agreed, finding both that the design was defective and that Bard to failed to warn of the risk. I’ve been saying all along I have no idea why Bard let this case go to trial. But the settlement value of Bard hernia mesh cases just went up.
August 26, 2022 Update
We could have a Rhode Island state court verdict today in a Bard Ventralex patch case, Trevino v. Bard …. stay tuned.
In Trevino, the plaintiff claims that the defendants knew or should have known that the PET ring, a component of the Ventralex Mesh, was prone to breaking or buckling, thereby increasing the risk of severe, permanent injuries. Despite these risks, the defendants intended for their product to be implanted for the purposes and in the manner that the plaintiff and her implanting physician used it.
June 14, 2022 Update
Plaintiff Antonio Milanesi filed a response to C.R. Bard’s post-verdict motion for JMOL. The response from Milanesi correctly points out that the arguments made in Bard’s current JMOL are the same arguments that the court has previously rejected on two occasions (Summary Judgment and pre-verdict JMOL).
The response also contends that the plaintiffs did satisfy the standard of proof for product defect under Florida law with competent expert testimony regarding the problems with the Ventralex mesh.
May 24, 2022 Update
I was excited when Antonio Milanesi won the second bellwether hernia mesh trial. But not entirely satisfied. The verdict of $255,000 was ridiculous in light of Mr. Milanesi’s suffering.
Lawyers on both sides have filed post-verdict motions challenging the trial’s outcome. The defendants filed a Motion for Judgment as a Matter of Law, claiming that the plaintiffs failed to establish the elements for causation or design defect under applicable Florida law.
Plaintiffs’ Lawyers Seek New Trial on Damages Only
The plaintiffs’ hernia mesh lawyer filed a Motion for a New Trial on Damages. The legal argument is that the trial judge failed to adequately explain to the jury that the defense had the burden of proof on mitigating damages. The likely scenario for the low jury payout is the jury blamed the surgeon who did the initial procedure. Plaintiff’s attorney is seeking the dream scenario: a new trial on damages only.
Both sides are due to file responses tomorrow.
May 23, 2022 Update
As of May 16, the C.R. Bard MDL-2846 has 18,803 active cases. The second bellwether trial resulting in a $250,000 verdict, ended over a month ago. But hernia mesh lawyers still don’t have a date for the next bellwether trial, and only three new cases have been added this month.
Frustratingly, there still needs to be a date for the third bellwether hernia mesh trial. There is hope Bard offers reasonable settlement amounts. But there is nothing concrete. We will update you when there is a development.
May 3, 2022 Update
Hernia mesh victims have been visiting this page for the latest hernia mesh news and updates over the last few weeks have come up empty. Not much is happening. We will get another trial date at some point, but that has not happened. Our lawyers expect a trial date in October 2022 for the third bellwether, but the exact date has not been set.
The Johnson & Johnson Ethicon Physiomesh hernia mesh lawsuits have been settled. This might have some impact on the Bard lawsuits. But, on another level, the Bard hernia mesh claims are very different from the Physiomesh claims. The biggest difference? When a product is recalled, like the Physiomesh, it makes settlement much easier.
April 16, 2022 Hernia Mesh Trial Verdict
VERDICT: $250,000 to Mr. Milanesi; $5,000 to his wife. Plaintiff won on his defective design count; Ms. Milanesi brought a loss of consortium claim. A more significant verdict would have been nice. But suppose each plaintiff in this litigation were to receive a $255,000 settlement. In that case, Bard is paying $4 billion to resolve every hernia mesh lawsuit filed in the federal class action. And many hernia mesh lawsuits allege injuries far more grave than Mr. Milanesi’s.
Was the Verdict in Milanesi Too Low?
From our conversation with the victims, there is understandable disappointment in the verdict’s size. You will see the same if you wade into the comments below. But you must understand that the bellwether impact is more about whether you win or lose than the verdict’s size.
Unique Facts of Milanesi on Damages
Notably, Bard blamed the original surgeon for choosing a large Ventralight. It may well be the verdict was less because the jury believed that some of the responsibility for the plaintiff’s injuries rested with that surgeon. Looking at this verdict from that lens is more encouraging because Bard will not have the “blame the doctor” defense in most cases. So do not assume the same jury would have awarded $255,000 in your case. (Update: the Trevino verdict in August 2022 proves this point. Both Milanesi and Trevino have similar suffering. Yet Milanesi gets $225,000, and Trevino receives $4.8 million.)
Hernia Mesh Settlement Amounts Should Reflect Reality
But the size of the jury’s payout probably tells us something we already knew. Some of these claims will be a close call for juries. Plaintiffs will win and lose hernia mesh suits at trial, at least in Becton Dickinson/C.R. Bard/Davol mesh lawsuits. The parties will eventually fashion settlement amounts around that reality.
C.R. Bard Inc. (now a subsidiary of Beckton-Dickson) is a medical device company based in New Jersey. For the last two decades, Bard has been the leading manufacturer of hernia mesh devices. A hernia mesh implant is a small artificial screen or mesh used during hernia repair surgery to help reinforce surgically repaired muscle walls.
In the early 2000s, Bard was one of the leaders in a new type of hernia mesh product that was permanent rather than absorbable. Permanent hernia mesh implants must be made so that the mesh will be accepted by the body’s immune system and not form abnormal attachments to adjacent tissue or organs. Bard’s new permanent hernia mesh products include the Bard® Mesh and the Ventralight ST Mesh.
Polypropylene
These new mesh implants are made of a particular type of plastic called polypropylene. Polypropylene is a thermoplastic polymer widely used in a variety of applications besides Bard’s mesh products. It is a type of plastic that is both lightweight and durable, exhibiting high chemical resistance, elasticity, and toughness. Polypropylene is utilized in packaging, textiles, automotive parts, reusable containers, laboratory equipment, and medical devices. Bard likes polypropylene in part because it can be easily molded into different shapes and forms, contributing to its popularity in manufacturing and production processes.
One problem was that polypropylene is not biologically inert in the human body. Biologically inert substances do not react chemically or biologically with living tissues or fluids in the body. Biologically inert is what you want, obviously.
Polypropylene is known to expand and shrink, causing severe injury and impacting a patient’s quality of life. When polypropylene degrades, it causes a material loss, leading to an increased surface area for bacteria to adhere to and release toxic compounds from the PP. This also increases the inflammatory reaction and the intensity of fibrosis. So instead of being biologically inert inside the body, Bard’s mesh devices’ material was incompatible with some patients’ immune systems, leading to many health problems.
Additionally, it is well-known within the scientific and medical community that polypropylene begins to degrade after implantation in the human body. This can lead to infection, irritation, and severe pain as the body tries to rid itself of foreign material.
Consequences
After the mesh was implanted, many patients experienced a severe immune response, leading to significant inflammation, pain, and discomfort.
In some cases, the protective coating on the mesh would break down or dissolve over time, causing the mesh to adhere to nearby tissues, such as the bowel or other organs, which it was supposed to avoid. These complications often resulted in serious health issues.
Bard’s hernia mesh devices have been linked to a range of internal injuries and severe complications. The most common problems reported include internal infections, chronic pain, and bowel obstructions due to the mesh interfering with normal bodily functions.
Additionally, the mesh could detach from its original placement and migrate to other areas of the body, puncturing adjacent tissue or organs in the process.
The mesh also had an awful tendency to adhere to vital organs or tissues. This has led to further complications and the need for corrective surgeries.
Get a Bard Hernia Mesh Lawyer
Obviously, if you still have a claim, you need to act quickly. Call our hernia mesh attorneys at 800-553-8082 for a free consultation or reach out online. Again, we think settlement is around the corner.