There are currently hundreds of of 3Dmax hernia mesh lawsuits pending in Federal and State Courts. Bard and Bard’s corporate subsidiary, Davol, have manufactured 3DMax mesh since circa 2007. 3D Max is a hernia mesh medical device utilized by surgeons as treatment for inguinal hernias. Thousand of patients have been implanted with 3Dmax mesh for inguinal hernia repair. Inguinal hernias are in the groin area. The vast majority of Inguinal hernias occur in men. There is no hernia mesh recall related to 3DMax surgical hernia mesh, at this time. There are currently many Bard3D Max lawsuits pending in Federal and State Courts across the country. Victims allege that the mesh is defective, unreasonably dangerous and they were not properly warned of the dangers of 3DMax mesh. According to the Master long form complaint, ” 3DMax Mesh: 3DMax is three-dimensional anatomically shaped pre-formed small pore, heavyweight, unsuitable polypropylene mesh.” MASTER LONG FORM COMPLAINT AND JURY DEMAND
August 2023 Updates and News
Update- August 6, 2023- The next MDL trial in Federal Court is scheduled for October 2023. This is the pre-selected Bard Perfix Plug lawsuit of Robert Stinson. The 4th bellwether trial in Ohio Federal Court will commence in January 2024. The fourth trial will be Jacob Bryan’s lawsuit against Bard / Davol concerning the Bard 3dMax.
January 17, 2023- “The next Bard hernia mesh trial was previously scheduled to begin Feb. 21, 2023 Court has postponed the start of the claim until May 15, 2023 Nearly 19,000 plaintiffs pursuing Bard hernia mesh lawsuits will be watching the results.” About lawsuits
September 15, 2022- There are now 17,653 lawsuits against Bard / Davol in Ohio Federal Court alleging defective hernia mesh. This does not include over 15,000 (app.) hernia mesh lawsuits against Bard pending in Providence, Rhode Island Superior Court.
April 15, 2022- A Federal Jury in the second bellwether trial, in the Southern District of Ohio, rendered a hernia mesh verdict against the manufacturer, Bard / Davol, in favor of the victim, Antonio Milanesi. The verdict, unfortunately, was for only $255,000 of damages. $5,000 of the $255,000 was loss of consortium damages for Mr. Milanesi’s wife. The second bellwether trial in the MDL was selected by the victim’s hernia mesh lawyers. The jury issued a verdict in favor of Mr. Milanesi’ defective design claim. However, the Federal jury denied the hernia mesh lawyers request for punitive damages. You can find the trial verdict sheet (PDF). The jury ruled in favor of the claims for negligent design defects and loss of consortium. The jury rejected Antonio Milanesi claims for strict product liability, negligent failure to warn, negligent misrepresentation, fraudulent misrepresentation and gross misconduct. (The first hernia mesh bellwether trial ended with a verdict in favor of the manufacturer.)
1/25/22- Approximately 5,000 Bard hernia mesh lawsuits in Rhode Island State Court have settled. The settlement amounts are very confidential. This did not constitute a global settlement of the RI consolidated lawsuits. There are more lawsuit settlements expected in the near future. There have been no reported settlements in the Bard / Davol consolidated MDL in Federal Court.
1/8/22- There is a lot of chatter for the last several months of settlements in the Bard Federal Court Ohio MDL. The 2nd Bellwether trial was scheduled in Ohio Federal Court on 1/10/22. The case did not go forward on that date as a result of a medical issue of one member of the defense team. The 2nd bellwether trial is now scheduled for March 21st, 2022. The 2nd bellwether trial is a Plaintiff’s selection. A deadline such as a bellwether trial is often an impetus to settle. The defendant manufacturer prevailed on the first bellwether trial in the Ohio MDL. The first bellwether trial was a defense selection and may not be indicative of future verdicts. The Federal Court justice tried to Nix the defense selection of the first bellwether trial as not representative of the other cases. There are rumors of thousands of settlements in the Bard State Court consolidated proceeding in Providence County Superior Court in Rhode Island. There are no reported settlements in the Bard MDL in Ohio.
6/4/2020- There is currently a consolidated lawsuit in Federal Court, otherwise known as Multidistrict litigation, for all Bard hernia mesh made of Polyproplene. This consolidated lawsuit is pending in the Southern District of Ohio (2:18-md-2846 — IN RE: Davol, Inc. / C.R. Bard, Inc., Polypropylene Hernia Mesh Products Liability Litigation) All Bard mesh lawsuits, made of Polyproplene, including 3DMax mesh, may be filed in this consolidated MDL lawsuit. There is also a consolidated state court lawsuit, C.R. Bard / Davol Inc., lawsuit pending in Providence, RI Superior Court. The Rhode Island 3dMax hernia mesh lawsuit allows those victims who have missed a mesh deadline (statute of limitations) an opportunity for a potentially extended 3dmax mesh statute of limitations.
This hernia mesh surgical mesh medical device article pertains to 3DMax hernia mesh otherwise known as 3d max mesh. Many people surgically implanted with Bard 3DMax™ mesh medical devices suffered very serious complications. These mesh victims are seeking top hernia mesh attorneys and product liability lawyers across the United States. Many surgical mesh victims are looking to file a hernia mesh lawsuit against corporations responsible for their injuries, symptoms and complications. The victims assert that the 3DMax surgical mesh was defectively designed and that they were not properly warned about the dangers of the mesh device. Victim’s are hoping for substantial cash payouts and settlements to compensate them for their pain and suffering, medical bills and revision surgeries. Will there be a 3DMax settlement 2021?
3DMax light hernia mesh lawsuit
Bard 3DMax mesh is responsible for causing thousands of men to endure chronic and severe pain and suffering. 3Dmax hernia mesh is known for causing sexual dysfunction in men. In some cases, a 3DMax revision or removal could lead to the removal of a testicle. Bard attempted to rectify the issues with Bard 3DMax mesh by rolling out 3DMax Light in 2009. According to propaganda submitted by Bard / Davol, “3DMAx™ Light Mesh is designed to conform to the inguinal anatomy and retain its shape following laparoscopic introduction, including a robotic approach. The unique shape of 3DMax™ Light Mesh was developed by a laparoscopic surgeon to conform to the inguinal anatomy and meet the specific challenges of laparoscopic hernia repair. The three-dimensional shape, sealed edge and medial orientation marker allow for easier positioning than conventional flat mesh and also enhance the speed and simplicity of placement.” Bard
3DMax™ hernia mesh lawsuit
Bard believed that 3dmax light with lighter polypropylene would lead to less complications. The 3dmax light was hardly a panacea for the problems associated with 3dMax hernia mesh. Victims continue to file 3Dmax Light hernia mesh lawsuits as well as 3dMax mesh lawsuits. 3DMax™ hernia mesh was manufactured by Davol. Davol is a Bard Company. This means that Davol is a subsidiary of Bard. 3Dmax is a hernia mesh product normally utilized by surgeons to fix hernias located in the groin. This product is alleged to be defective because it is susceptible to erode. This can cause terrible and debilitating pain and suffering. It has been reported that 3DMax may be the cause of sexual dysfunction in male hernia mesh victims.
There have been incidences when a testicle must be removed in order to remove such mesh. There have been various reports of this mesh shrinking and even folding over. This mesh has been known to fail in the past according to various reports. See also: A HERNIA MESH MESS | DAVOL / BARD HERNIA MESH TIMELINE & INFO.
Mesh 3DMax hernia mesh lawsuit attorneys
According to biased propaganda submitted by Bard, “Bard 3DMax Mesh was developed based on careful and precise anatomical research of the inguinal canal. The three-dimensional, anatomically curved shape, sealed edge and medial orientation marker allow for easier positioning than a conventional flat mesh and also enhance the speed and simplicity of placement.” Hernia mesh attorneys and bard 3d max / 3dmax mesh law firms are filing individual hernia mesh lawsuits against Bard / Davol on behalf of victims of Bard 3DMax hernia mesh. Victims are seeking substantial legal settlements for their injuries and complications. If Bard and Davol will not pay lucrative settlements to surgical mesh victims then the victims will go to a jury trial on the merits to get justice. see recall notice December 08, 2008 for: Bard 3D Max Mesh, Left large , Sterile Pre-formed Knitted Polypropylene
Hernia mesh lawsuit attorneys seeking justice and financial compensation
Many people are searching for the best hernia mesh lawyers who can successfully handle a hernia mesh lawsuit. These people are searching the google search engine, searching for the following: best hernia mesh attorney, best mesh law firms 2020 and top hernia mesh lawyer. Other hernia mesh victims are seeking information about hernia mesh settlements by reviewing the following topics.
- average settlement for hernia mesh,
- mesh patch lawsuit settlements,
- hernia mesh lawsuit settlement amounts 2020
- average workers compensation settlement hernia,
- inguinal hernia settlements,
- hernia mesh settlement 2020
- 3dmax hernia mesh lawsuit
We are reviewing potential Bard 3D max mesh lawsuits for victims
We are investigating alleged design defects in 3DMax Hernia mesh. We have reviewed and gathered various studies, adverse event reports and tons of documents and information pertaining to 3D Max mesh. The FDA has a long history of not taking appropriate action or taking any action even when there is a known defect in an unsafe defective product or medical device. Often manufacturers are well aware of defects in their medical devices yet do not warn medical providers surgeons or the public about the danger of their devices
For example, on May 25th 2016 Johnson and Johnson declared that, “Ethicon has initiated a voluntary product recall of ETHICON PHYSIOMESH™ Flexible Composite Mesh (for laparoscopic use) (“ETHICON PHYSIOMESH™ Composite Mesh”). Ethicon is recalling the product following an analysis conducted at the request of the Ethicon Medical Safety Team of unpublished data from two (2) large independent hernia registries (Herniamed German Registry and Danish Hernia Database-DHDB). The recurrence/reoperation rates (respectively) after laparoscopic ventral hernia repair using ETHICON PHYSIOMESH™ Composite Mesh were higher than the average rates of the comparator set of meshes among patients in these registries.”
“The modified Bard 3DMAX Mesh is anatomically designed to fit the inguinal anatomy. The device is curve shaped and preformed with sealed edges that allow for easier positioning of the device than a traditional flat sheet of mesh in a laparoscopic inguinal hernia repair. The device is constructed of knitted polypropylene monofilaments 7.5 millimeters in diameter. The knit construction allows the mesh to be stretched in both directions in order to accommodate and reinforce tissue defects. The device contains an orientation marker in an M shape with an arrow to facilitate mesh positioning and placement.” Access data
Questions victims are seeking answers
Many victims are seeking info about the following:
- What is the hernia mesh lawsuit?
- What are the symptoms of hernia mesh rejection?
- Is mesh for hernia safe?
- What is a mesh for hernia?
Bard 3Dmax hernia mesh lawsuit update
A New Jersey state Appellate Court “refused to reinstate a product liability lawsuit involving Bard’s 3DMax polypropylene mesh, which is used for hernia repair… The three-judge appellate panel noted in their decision that the company has continued to be in compliance with FDA requirements, and has never had to recall the 3DMax product from the market.” https://www.mddionline.com/bd-scores-victory-bards-hernia-mesh-case
The New Jersey appellate court reasoned that, “In the instant case, none of the experts specifically opined that 3DMax is defective and that this defective design caused the medical complications complained of by the plaintiff. Instead, plaintiff’s three experts gave general opinions about the various medical risks of the product that can cause complications. This is not enough to overcome the summary judgment standard. They also noted that none of the experts who testified presented an alternative, feasible design for the 3DMax, which is one of the determining factors in a defective design case.” Id.
Christelle Angelastro – 3dMax hernia mesh lawsuit
“LOS ANGELES – A California woman alleges a hernia mesh product used in her surgery failed and caused her pain.Christelle Angelastro filed a complaint (U.S. District Court for the Central District of California case number 2:18-cv-05069-SVW-SS) on June 7 in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California against Davol Inc., C.R. Bard; and Does 1-10, alleging strict liability, negligence and other counts. According to the complaint, the plaintiff alleges that on Feb. 12, 2016, she underwent left inguinal hernia repair and was implanted with defendants’ 3DMax Light. She alleges the following June, the suit states the device failed and she had it partially removed because it was causing pain and needed another surgery that November.” Norcal record
Is the FDA on notice about allegations that 3DMax™ is defective?
Here are some of the adverse event reports filed by victims with the FDA:
12/12/2008 Adverse Event Report: DAVOL INC., SUB. C.R. BARD, INC. 3D MAX MESH- “in 2008, patient underwent bilateral laparoscopic inguinal hernia repairs with 3dmax mesh. Patient complained of severe pain and swelling throughout the post-operative period which he reported was worse on the right side. Approx five months later, patient underwent open bilateral mesh explant procedures and reports that surgeon noted that from examination of the mesh, it appeared as if the right hernia mesh had folded in its midsection and no longer covered the hernia defect. Patient reported from late 2008-2009, he suffered severe pain and currently experiences daily pain episodes.”
12/19/2007 “Adverse Event Report: DAVOL INC., SUB. C.R. BARD, INC. 3D MAX MESH- “The initial attorney report alleged pain, required substantial medical treatment, scarring, disfigurement and permanent injury, defective mesh. The following is based on the medical records provided by the pt’s attorney: (b)(6) 2004: pt underwent repair of recurrent right flank incisional hernia and a left inguinal hernia with a bard 3d mesh. On (b)(6) 2004: pt admitted to hospital for fever of unk origin. On (b)(6) 2004: pt presented with shortness of breath, diagnosed with congestive heart failure. Further diagnosed with bacterial endocarditis with (b)(6).”
02/24/2012 Adverse Event Report: BARD BARD 3D MAX – “Had bi-lateral hernia surgery with mesh implanted. One large piece of bard 3d mesh used to cover a femoral and inguinal hernia together on the right, and another large piece used to cover two inguinal hernias on the left. Bard 3d max lot huvi0120 and huvj0718 and sorbafix lot huvj0760. Since (b)(6) weeks after surgery, have had tremendous pain in right pelvis to pubic bone and down front of leg, and some burning pain in left pelvis. Also had surgical clips used to hold right peritoneum closed. Surgical report says it “opened during the surgery. ” Report Number MW5026193 Device Lot No: HUVJ0718
08/09/2012 Adverse Event Report: DAVOL INC. 3D MAX- “As alleged in medwatch report (b)(4): “had bi-lateral hernia surgery with mesh implanted. One large piece of bard 3d mesh used to cover a femoral and inguinal hernia together on the right and another large piece used to cover two inguinal hernias on the left. Since weeks after surgery, have had tremendous pain in right pelvis to pelvic bone and down front of leg, and some burning in left pelvis. Also had surgical clips used to hold right peritoneum closed. Surgical report says “it opened during the surgery. ” pt reported: she has seen multiple doctors and the cause of her pain is not known. An ultrasound was inconclusive. She describes her pain as sometimes debilitating. The drs have made no direct connection between the pain and an issue with the implants at this connection between the pain and an issue with the implants at this time. On (b)(6) 2012, the pt had exploratory surgery at which time the dr noted inflammation and scar tissue. He removed adhesions, and scar tissue. He also removed some tacks to relieve tension. No problem was noted with the mesh and it was left in place. Pt says she is still experiencing pain which is sometimes burning and sometimes stabbing pain. Pt reports that during the recent procedure, the surgeon removed the sorbafix tacks and he flattened the mesh and used suture to secure them.” Report No: 1213643-2012-00564
02/07/07 MAUDE Adverse Event Report: DAVOL INC., SUB. C.R. BARD, INC. 3D MAX MESH “Attorney’s report of pt’s implantation with two bard 3dmax meshes with the use of a salute 38cm implant cartridge. The mos following the surgery the pt developed pelvic discomfort which continued for several mos post-op until the discovery in 2006 of a recurrent inguinal hernia which allegedly occurred as a result of the failed mesh and q-rings. A repair of the recurrent hernia was attempted; however, the pt continued to experience worsened pelvic, abdominal and testicular pain, significant urinary tract irritability, inflammation and infectious prostate symptoms, sexual dysfunction and a large painful mass developed at the surgical site, with associated nerve damage and testicular and lymphatic obstructions. Exploratory surgery in 2007, revealed that the q-ring failed to keep the mesh in place, allowing the mesh to move freely about the body, attaching to various internal organs which resulted in internal damage. The pelvic mass containing a portion of the mesh was removed, but fragments of the mesh remain imbedded in the pt’s pelvic region.” Report Number: 1213643-2008-00192”
- 10/19/2009 “Pt reports pain and bulging on left side at hernia repair site following implant of two (2) meshes on left side during lap inguinal repair 2007. In 2009- pt underwent exploratory surgery, during which a recurrent hernia was confirmed. Pt stated that the surgeon had indicated that one of the mesh patches implanted in 2007, had shifted a little due to a recurrence. Surgeon placed a perfix plug to correct the condition. Original meshes implanted in the same month, were left in place.”
- 06/03/15 DAVOL INC., SUB. C.R. BARD, INC. 3DMAX MESH SURGICAL MESH “The following was reported to davol: it was reported that during an inguinal repair procedure using a 3dmax mesh device, the mesh was rolled using a grasper and inserted through a 10mm port. When the mesh was unrolled inside the body cavity the surgeon noted the mesh was torn and damaged in placement. The mesh was removed and another 3dmax mesh was used to complete the case without issue. There was no injury to the patient.”