Hernia Mesh Lawsuit Against C.R. Bard

C.R. Bard is defending over 18,000 hernia mesh lawsuits alleging that its mesh devices were defective, resulting in injuries and complications for thousands of hernia surgery patients. Our hernia mesh lawyers are handling these claims in all 50 states.

This post will provide news and updates on the hernia mesh lawsuit against C.R. Bard and the current status of the Bard hernia mesh class-action MDL after the $4.8 million C.R. Bard verdict in Rhode Island state court and the $500,000 verdict in November 2023 in Stinson. The plaintiffs getting another landmark verdict now will hopefully have a meaningful impact on victims’ settlement payouts in the hernia mesh litigation.

These claims are moving toward settlement. If you have a potential claim, call a hernia mesh attorney – preferably us, but any qualified lawyer – today. Because the statute of limitations imposes a deadline to sue for a defective hernia mesh, it is not a deadline you can miss. You can reach us at 800-553-8082.

Hernia Mesh Lawsuit News and Updates

Before we get to the nuts and bolts of the various class action hernia mesh lawsuit 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.

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 27, 2024 Update

No news. Will let you know if we hear something.

March 25, 2024 Update

The first day of the mediation was today. There is no news.  There may be news tomorrow.  The most realistic good news would be another scheduled mediation and a report of progress.

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 the warnings case.  So, on some level, this is a relief.  But 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:

  1. 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.
  2. 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.
  3. 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.

January 17, 2024 Update

There are 20,973 hernia mesh lawsuits in the MDL.

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 14, 2023 Update

The C.R. Bard hernia mesh class action MDL added another 399 new cases over the last month, bringing the current number of pending cases up to 20,768. The Bard hernia mesh MDL has averaged added at least 300 new cases each month since the start of this year.

November 13, 2023 Update

The fourth bellwether trial involving Bard, slated for January 2024, features plaintiff Jacob Bryan.  He filed a lawsuit in 2018 after experiencing significant complications after a 3DMax hernia mesh was used in his hernia repair surgery. These complications, including mesh deformation and ongoing pain, have led to a continued need for medical care and possibly further surgical intervention for Mr. Bryan.

Central to this lawsuit are allegations similar to those in other hernia mesh cases. The plaintiff claims Bard failed to provide adequate warnings about the risks associated with the 3DMax mesh, both to patients and healthcare professionals.

This includes allegations of neglecting to mention known risks and downplaying the possible severity and frequency of adverse effects. The lawsuit also raises serious concerns about the design and manufacturing of the 3DMax mesh, suggesting that flaws in these areas may have contributed to the severe complications experienced by patients.

November 11, 2023 Update

What is next?  Jacob Bryan’s case is the next trial. We will give you a sneak preview of that case shortly.

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.

October 2, 2023 Update

September was a very slow month for the CR Bard hernia mesh MDL docket. The only entry on the docket for the entire month was an Order from the MDL Judge giving the parties seven additional days to resolve a discovery dispute before the court got involved.

Firewords start on October 16th.

September 1, 2023 Update

August was slow. The fall should be more interesting and, hopefully, the path to a global Bard hernia mesh settlement. Another pivotal test trial within the Bard hernia mesh MDL appears to be on the horizon. A recent Case Management Order, issued yesterday by Judge Sargus, has officially set the trial date for the Stinson v. Davol, Inc., et al. (18-cv-1022) case, commencing on October 16, 2023, a fourth bellwether trial is slated for early 2024 involving the Bryan v. C.R. Bard Inc. et al. (18-cv-1440) case.

We have been saying that we do not think Bard will let Stinson go to trial and would make a reasonable global settlement offer. This is still our prediction. But take our predictions with a grain of salt. We also predicted Bard would never let Trevino go to trial because it would likely get whacked by a jury – which is precisely what happened to the tune of $4.8 million.

July 27, 2023 Update

There is no change to our last Bard bellwether trial update. Stinson is still set for October. The next Case Management Conference is on August 29th.

July 7, 2003 Update

The MDL Panel agreed with the MDL judge, finding that a California hernia mesh lawsuit should be remanded back to its home jurisdiction. The plaintiff filed a product liability claim against C.R. Bard and a medical malpractice lawsuit against a Santa Ana surgeon.

July 1, 2023 Update

The MDL judge shot down Bard’s effort to change the bellwether trials. (See the June 5th update below)

June 12, 2023 Update

Bard continues to struggle with product liability lawsuits. The latest is the Bard PowerPort device, which provides a port for patients to receive medication without the need to start a fresh IV. Like the hernia mesh claims,  Bard PowerPort lawsuits involve allegations that the device was poorly made.

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 19, 2023 Update

There was a Case Management Conference in the MDL on Wednesday looking at the progress made in getting the third and fourth bellwether lawsuits (Stinson and Bryan). The next Case Management Conference is scheduled for June 13, 2023. The hope here is that keeping the pressure on Bard in these last two trials will lead to a long-awaited settlement before either of these hernia mesh lawsuits go to trial

May 15, 2023 Update

As the hernia mesh class action MDL involving C.R. Bard continues to drag itself toward a conclusion, large numbers of new plaintiffs continue to join. Over the last month, 206 more cases were added to the MDL. That swells the total number of hernia mesh plaintiffs to 19,476. Since the start of the year, 1,000 new cases have been added to the Bard hernia mesh MDL.

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.

May 1, 2023 Update

The new trial date for Stinson v. C.R. Bard, the third MDL bellwether trial, is now reset for October 16, 2023. This trial date is the pressure point for settlement for this case and the entire litigation.

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.

December 18, 2022 Update

As hernia mesh settlement rumors continue to swirl, the C.R. Bard hernia mesh MDL adds new cases as we slowly inch closer to a pivotal 3rd bellwether trial in May 2023 (recently postponed from February).

The class action lawsuit added 273 new hernia mesh cases to the MDL over the past month, increasing the total pending Bard mesh lawsuits to 18,227. The Bard hernia mesh MDL grew by 23% in 2022, adding 3,380 cases.

It is still the second largest mass tort behind only the 3M earplugs MDL.

November 17, 2022 Update

Over the last month, another 166 new hernia mesh injury cases were added to the C.R. Bard class action MDL. At the beginning of the year, there were just over 15,000 plaintiffs in the MDL, which is now up to 17,954 and growing. The continued growth in pending cases should help keep the settlement pressure on Bard’s parent company, Beckton Dickson. If we get a solid verdict for the plaintiff in the upcoming bellwether trial in February, we could potentially be talking about a global settlement deal before June.

November 1, 2022 Update

The MDL  judge in the Bard Hernia Mesh litigation issued an order confirming the pre-trial and trial schedule for the upcoming 3rd bellwether test trial Stinson v. C.R. Bard et al. The trial will commence on February 21, 2023. Each side will get 35 hours of trial time, giving us a trial of about three weeks. Final Daubert motions are due by October 7, 2022.

This trial puts real pressure on the upcoming settlement talks. Bard does not want to take another multi-million dollar verdict as it did in Trevino.

The conventional wisdom is that Stinson is also a strong case with the possibility of another larger jury payout.

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.

August 24, 2022 Update

Do we finally have a hernia mesh settlement breakthrough? Maybe.

The big news is Judge Sargus appointed a “settlement master” to help facilitate global settlement negotiations between Bard and the plaintiffs’ attorneys.

Why is this a big deal? In prior mass tort MDLs,  the appointment of a settlement mediator has been a precursor to a final settlement. In addition to appointing the settlement master, the class action judge kept the pressure on everyone by finalizing dates for two additional bellwether trials for February 2023 and May 2023.

July 8, 2022 Update

C.R. Bard still pushes for a docket control order in the hernia mesh MDL. Meanwhile, the tide of incoming new hernia mesh lawsuits filed against Bard across the country continues. Within the last week, ten new hernia mesh cases have been added to the MDL from the District of Rhode Island (4) and the District of Minnesota (6).

June 20, 2022 Update

The plaintiffs in the C.R. Bard hernia mesh MDL-2846 filed a strong response last week in opposition to the defense motion asking the MDL judge for a docket control order.

In their opposition, the plaintiffs characterize the defense motion as an inappropriate effort to get “de facto summary judgment.” They claim that the relief sought by the defendants is unprecedented and would be overly burdensome to future plaintiffs.

On Friday, the defendants filed a reply in support of their motion downplaying the burden that the docket control measures would have. We should get a decision on the motion within the next few weeks.

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 26, 2022 Update

The big question we are getting from hernia mesh victims is when will the Stinton case, the third bellwether mesh lawsuit, will go to trial? The trial date has yet to be set, but our hernia mesh lawyers believe the trial will likely go in October if a new trial is not granted in Milanesi.

Stinson, a plaintiffs’ pick for trial, involves the extra-large PerFix Plug device used to repair inguinal hernias. Mr. Stinson claims difficulty with urination, weight gain, an impaired sex life, and nerve entrapment.

Stinson Could Trigger Hernia Mesh Settlement

This trial could trigger Bard to offer reasonable settlement amounts for the entire class action. Bard knows this is a good case. It unsuccessfully filed a motion to replace Stinson as the third bellwether because it was not a “representative” case in the class.

Bard is smart enough to fear Stinson’s bellwether effect, so we may see a Bard hernia mesh settlement before this lawsuit goes to trial.

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.

April 14, 2022 Mesh Trial Update

This is the day hernia mesh victims have been waiting for. The defendants have rested their case in the Milanesi trial in Ohio. The jury deliberated for two-and-a-half hours yesterday after closing statements. The jury is set to resume deliberations in 15 minutes. We will likely… get a verdict today in this crucial hernia mesh lawsuit.

As of 3:06 p.m., we have no verdict. The jury has posed two questions to the judge so far.

No verdict today.

April 1, 2022 Mesh Trial Update

The hernia mesh trial is moving along slowly. Seven witnesses have testified in the first nine days. Apparently, Bard’s defense lawyers missed  Trial Advocacy 101, where future attorneys learn to make their best points on cross-examination quickly and get out. Dr. Krpata could have confessed to shooting JFK by the end of his second day of testimony, and no one would have noticed. The first four days of trial are over, and only two witnesses have testified, one by videotape – Davol’s (Bard subdivision) president.

The trial is set to last three weeks, but our hernia mesh lawyers predict it will extend beyond next Friday.

March 22, 2022 Mesh Trial Update

The Milanesi trial began yesterday. Not much has happened other than the selection of the jurors who will hear this hernia mesh lawsuit.

March 9, 2022 Mesh Lawsuit Update

We are less than two weeks away from the Milanesi case reset for trial on March 21, 2022. All the energy in this litigation is going into that trial from attorneys on both sides. I don’t get the feeling there will be many bellwether trials in the Bard hernia mesh lawsuit. So every trial will reverberate in the final settlement compensation payouts victims see in the Bard hernia mesh lawsuits.

January 10, 2022 Mesh Lawsuit Update

Today was supposed to be a big deal because it was to mark the beginning of the next hernia mesh lawsuit that is going to trial. The case of Antonio Milanesi v. C.R. Bard begins today in Ohio before Judge Edmund A. Sargus. This is the biggest trial in this litigation and will be important for future mesh lawsuit settlement amounts. But the judge postponed the trial. No new date has been set. But our attorneys expect the new hernia mesh lawsuit trial will begin this winter.

Bard Hernia Mesh Lawsuit Verdict in 2021

Last month, Round 1 of the bellwether trials in the C.R. Bard hernia mesh litigation resulted in a surprising victory for the defense. After a 22-day trial for Steven Johns, a federal court jury in Dayton, OH, ruled in favor of the defendants on all claims. It was a total win for Bard, and Mr. Johns’ received nothing.

Plaintiffs’ hernia mesh lawyers are saddened, and victims are wondering what this means for the future of the lawsuits against Bard. 

Everyone needs to take a deep breath. This defeat in this first test trial, however painful,  will likely have a minimal impact on the eventual outcome of hernia mesh litigation. 

The same happened ten years ago in the Kugel Mesh litigation (a predecessor to the current hernia mesh litigation). Bard also scored a surprise victory – at least to plaintiffs’ attorneys – in the opening bellwether trial. But the second bellwether trial generated a $1,500,000 verdict for the plaintiff. This immediately prompted Bard to negotiate a global settlement of all the remaining cases. We could see that pattern repeat itself in this litigation.

History of the C.R. Bard Hernia Mesh  

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.


These new mesh implants are made of a particular type of plastic called polypropylene. That plastic mesh is covered with a coating designed to create a barrier and prevent the mesh from attaching to nearby organ tissue. Unfortunately, the design of Bard’s hernia mesh implants had flaws that caused severe complications and adverse health consequences for many patients.

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.


After the mesh was implanted, many patients would have a severe immune response causing inflammation and pain. In other cases, the coating on the mesh would dissolve, allowing the mesh to adhere to nearby tissue in the bowel or other organs.

Bard’s hernia mesh devices can cause internal injuries and health complications. The most common injuries linked to defective hernia mesh products:

  • Internal infections and pain
  • Bowel obstruction
  • Mesh detachment and migration
  • Puncture of adjacent tissue/organs
  • Adhesion to tissue and organs

Status of the Hernia Mesh Class-Action MDL Litigation Against C.R. Bard

Over the last 5-6 years, thousands of hernia mesh product liability lawsuits have been filed against C.R. Bard. These lawsuits allege that Bard’s polypropylene mesh products were not adequately tested before release and had design flaws that made them unsafe for certain patients.

In 2017 the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation (JMPL) consolidated all of the Bard hernia mesh lawsuits in federal courts into a newly created Multi-District Litigation (MDL), which is similar to a class-action. Six years later, here we are.

Ohio MDL

The Bard Hernia Mesh MDL (In re: Davol, Inc./C.R. Bard, Inc., Polypropylene Hernia Mesh Products Liability Lit. – MDL-2846) was created in the Southern District of Ohio. There are currently three different hernia mesh MDLs involving other medical device companies, but the Bard MDL is the largest with over 12,000 cases.

Progress in MDL

Like all the other hernia mesh MDLs, the progress of the Bard MDL has been slow compared to other mass torts. But it is picking up now. Many of the 15,136 plaintiffs in the Bard litigation have had their cases pending for five years or more. (If you are reading this and you are frustrated, I get it.) The timing of the COVID pandemic is the main reason for this slow pace. Last year, the federal court system shutdown happened when the Bard MDL was reaching its final stages.

Fortunately, the Bard MDL appears to be close to passing the finish line.   The next trial against Bard in MDL-2846 (what the class action is called) is on March 23, 2023. Update: Now October.

Estimated Settlement Payout in Bard Hernia Mesh Lawsuits

The result of the next bellwether trial will impact the settlement amounts in the Bard hernia mesh litigation. But we are hoping for a global hernia mesh settlement before that trial.

Estimating the amount of that settlement payout at this stage is still speculative. No one knows what the average settlement value will be or how the recent big jury payout changes the trajectory of this litigation. And an attorney’s estimate of average settlement amounts is always fluid. But based on Bard’s settlement of a prior mass tort involving an earlier hernia mesh implant (the Kugel hernia mesh), we can try to make an educated guess as to the average settlement payout compensation plaintiffs might get in the Bard hernia mesh lawsuits.

Value of Bard Hernia Mesh Lawsuits

We believe the average settlement payout for Bard hernia mesh plaintiffs will be around $80,000. The September 8, 2021 loss has little impact on this projection.

Hernia mesh lawsuit settlement amounts for individual plaintiffs will vary based on a point-based tier system, which will award more compensation to those plaintiffs with more significant injuries.

For example, plaintiffs with the most severe injuries would be in “TIER I” and might get an average per person settlement between $110,000-$130,000. Plaintiffs with only minor complications and no permanent injuries would be in “TIER III” and may only get $50,000-$60,000. The Johns case is an excellent example of TIER III. That was an adhesions-only claim. Under this projected scenario, plaintiffs categorized in TIER II might get $75,000-$85,000.

Having settled the last round of mesh cases for average per-person settlement amounts of $70,000 each, Bard is familiar with this settlement range. Psychologically, this makes a similar number easier to swallow. Taken together in context, the Johns, Milanesi, and Trevino verdicts slightly increase projected future settlement amounts.

How Long Does a Hernia Mesh Lawsuit Take?

If you ask a victim who got into this litigation early – nearly five years go – they will tell you a hernia mesh lawsuit takes forever.

The hernia mesh lawsuits have been consolidated into several class action MDLs, most of which are holding bellwether test trials. We have had three bellwether trials. Hopefully, there will be a global settlement in 2024.  

How Do I Know If My Hernia Mesh Was Recalled (or a part of these lawsuits)

There have been major defects with many hernia mesh implants. There have not been any major recalls, so it is doubtful that your hernia mesh was recalled. I’m amazed how many people do not know their hernia mesh manufacturer. If you do not know, let your hernia mesh attorneys dig up your medical records to find out.

Contact Us About Your Hernia Mesh Case

It is not too late to sue Bard for the problem you have had with your hernia mesh. Call and get answers. Call our hernia mesh attorneys at 800-553-5053 or get a free consultation online.

Contact Information