Many victims are seeking hernia mesh lawsuit updates. This hernia mesh lawsuit post provides mesh victim’s the mesh lawsuit update they are seeking, pertaining to the Bard hernia mesh lawsuits filed in Federal Courts across the United States. Unfortunately there are no mesh settlement updates because there has not been a reported Bard settlement since 2011 when approximately 2600 hernia mesh lawsuits were settled in the Bard Multidistrict Litigation pending in Rhode Island Federal Court (MDL No. 07-1842 ML, In re Kugel Mesh Hernia Patch Litigation) Mesh settlement updates will be provided as soon as we learn of such surgical mesh settlements 2019. We will do out best to give mesh updates 2019.





Mesh updates : Editor’s notes

  • On August 2nd 2018, the UNITED STATES JUDICIAL PANEL on MULTIDISTRICT LITIGATION centralized pretrial proceedings for the  C. R. Bard  and Davol Inc. hernia mesh lawsuits pending in Federal Courts for all Polypropylene hernia mesh made by Bard Davol. The panel determined that, “centralization in the Southern District of Ohio will serve the convenience of the parties and witnesses and promote the just and efficient conduct of this litigation.” Bard MDL transfer order
  • Drug Watch reported: “A federal panel has decided to streamline pre-trial proceedings for what could be as many as 122 Bard Davol hernia mesh lawsuits currently pending in federal court. And widespread use of the medical device could mean hundreds of other people may come forward with injuries. The Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation combined 53 federal lawsuits into a multidistrict litigation (MDL) on Aug. 2, 2018. MDLs allow a large number of similar cases to move more efficiently through the legal process. The panel said another 69 cases currently in federal court may also qualify.’ Drug Watch
  •  March 11th, 2019: “According to recent court filings, lawyers expect the number of hernia mesh lawsuits filed against C.R. Bard in the federal court system to hit 3,000 by the end of the year, as individuals who experienced complications following a hernia repair continue to investigate and file claims. There are currently only a few hundred product liability lawsuits brought in U.S. District Courts nationwide, each involving similar allegations that plaintiffs suffered painful and debilitating complications that were caused by design defects with Bard Ventralex, Bard Perfix, Bard Composix and other polypropylene products sold by the same manufacturer in recent years.”
  • “On April 17, 2019, Judge Sargus, who is overseeing the Bard Hernia Mesh MDL in the Southern District of Ohio, held a Case Management Conference. At the time of the conference, the Court noted that there were just over 1,700 cases filed in the MDL, with approximately 80-100 new cases being filed each week. The parties advised that the protocol and schedule for conducting various depositions were still being discussed, including the depositions of the treating physicians, corporate designees, and company witnesses. Paper discovery from defendants is also still being produced and reviewed by Plaintiffs’ leadership. Another conference is scheduled for early June.”


What is the past  history of the Bard hernia mesh lawsuits?

“Plaintiffs on April 10 asked a federal judicial panel to centralize 55 hernia mesh cases against C.R. Bard Inc., Davol Inc. and Becton Dickinson in a multidistrict litigation in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Ohio or the Western District of Mississippi (In Re:  Davol, Inc./C.R. Bard, Inc., Polypropylene Hernia Mesh Products Liability Litigation, MDL Docket No. 2846, JPMDL). Lexis Legal News

“The plaintiffs allege that the polypropylene mesh patches used to repair hernia can cause adhesions that damage nerves, viscera and internal organs; severe inflammatory and allergic responses and foreign body rejection; migration within the body; and infections.  Plaintiffs allege that the defendants failed to adequately warn doctors or patients about the risks of the hernia patches.” Id.

The Plaintiff’s assert that there are 55 Bard hernia mesh lawsuits pending in Federal Courts in the United States. The Plaintiff’s are asking the Judicial Panel to exclude the Kugel hernia patch from the litigation. Avid readers of this mesh blog will be aware that the Rhode Island federal Court disbanded the Kugel Hernia patch Multidistrict litigation in 2017.



Bard / Davol responds to the Plaintiff’s request for multidistrict litigation

According to Bard, in the early portion of 2018 there were approximately 100 hernia mesh lawsuits pending against Bard/ Davol in Federal Courts. “There are nearly 100 products liability cases pending in federal courts around the country related to the use of these products.” DEFENDANTS C. R. BARD, INC. AND DAVOL INC.’S RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR § 1407 COORDINATION/CONSOLIDATION & TRANSFER OF RELATED ACTIONS TO THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO

Fifteen Bard surgical mesh victims, acting by and through their hernia mesh law firms, filed a a motion to set up a multidistrict litigation. “The plaintiffs in fifteen of these cases have filed a Motion for § 1407 Coordination /Consolidation and Transfer of Related Actions (“MDL Motion”), with which many other plaintiffs have joined.” Id.

C.R. Bard, Inc. and Davol Inc. did not object to the victim’s motion to consolidate federal court hernia mesh lawsuits filed against Bard Davol into one multidistrict litigation (MDL). Rather than objecting to the motion to consolidate, Bard’s high powered hernia mesh attorneys decided to “respond” to the motion.

Bard’s mesh lawyers explained themselves in the response by stating, “Defendants C. R. Bard, Inc. and Davol Inc. (collectively, “Defendants” or “Bard”) respond to Moving Plaintiffs’ motion for MDL consideration (“MDL Motion”) to provide a more complete picture of past and present Bard hernia mesh litigation, and to provide its views.” Id. In a blatant maneuver to curry favor favor with the judicial panel, Bard stated, ”  Defendants, through this response, hope to provide the JPML with a complete understanding of the litigation concerning these products to aid in its decision-making.”Id.

The hernia mesh lawyers representing Bard/ Davol asserted that there were two central reasons for their filing a response memorandum:

  • It was crucial to Bard / Davol that all the allegedly defective hernia mesh they manufacture is included in the multidistrict hernia mesh lawsuit.  Bard’s mesh attorneys believe that it is arbitrary to leave out some of the mesh from the consolidated lawsuit but leave out other types of mesh. “First, Defendants do not oppose the transfer of cases involving their polypropylene hernia repair products to multidistrict litigation, but only if all such products are included, without the arbitrary exception that the Moving Plaintiffs have proposed in a footnote.” Id. (Bard was perturbed that Plaintiff’s lawyers were attempting to exclude the Kugel Patch from this particular hernia mesh litigation)
  • “Second, while there are many potential appropriate venues, Defendants suggest that he District of New Jersey and Southern District of New York are more appropriate transferee districts, based on a reasoned application of the relevant factors, than the districts proposed by the Moving and Joining Plaintiffs.” Id.

Bard’s mesh law firm points out some historical facts to the Panel | mesh lawsuit update

While poviding an extensive mesh lawsuit update, Bard’s mesh attorneys were quick to point out that this was not the United States Federal Court’s first rodeo with multidistrict litigation involving Bard mesh.C.R. There was previously a multidistrict litigation pending in RI Federal Court entitled: In re: Kugel Mesh Hernia Patch Products Liability. Approximately, 2600 of these cases settled in 2011.

Bard’s surgical mesh law firm explained that, “The MDL Motion omits some key details about the pending litigation and makes only passing reference to a prior MDL involving Bard polypropylene hernia mesh products, In re: Kugel Mesh Hernia Patch Products Liability. In July 2014, the District of Rhode Island stopped accepting new cases into the MDL. In June 2017, shortly before retiring, Judge Lisi transferred the MDL to Chief Judge William E. Smith of the District of Rhode Island. In September 2017, upon Judge Smith’s recommendation, the JPML terminated the MDL.” DEFENDANTS C. R. BARD, INC. AND DAVOL INC.’S RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR § 1407 COORDINATION/CONSOLIDATION & TRANSFER OF RELATED ACTIONS TO THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO

Bard’s mesh attorneys touts lower Bard hernia mesh lawsuit filings during the 2014-2015 time period based on:

  • The suspension of new cases into the Kugel Mesh lawsuit and the eventual termination of that multidistict litigation. “Once cases were no longer transferred into the MDL, the rate of new filings dropped dramatically.” Id. “Between 2014 and 2016, the inventory of Bard hernia cases around the country was in the range of 100, with most of those cases being in state court. In fact, by January 2017, the number of Bard hernia mesh cases pending in federal court reached a low of 22.” Id.


Bard complains that a recent surge in Bard mesh lawsuits result from:

  • “This surge appears to be driven by a tremendous growth in plaintiffs’ attorney advertisements, seeking to capitalize on publicity generated by a recall of another company’s hernia mesh product and a resulting MDL involving that product. Specifically, in May 2016, Ethicon, Inc. instituted a product recall of its Physiomesh hernia repair product. Within a year of the recall, attorney advertising for hernia mesh cases skyrocketed with nearly $35 million in advertising being spent in 2017 alone.” (Editor’s note: This is either a misrepresnetaion by Bard’s attorneys or it is a lack of knowleadge / research aboutt Ethicon Physiomesh hernia mesh. Ethicon did not recall Physiomesh from Unites States markets, tehy vlountarily removed the mesh from the market. In May 2016, Ethicon withdrew its ETHICON PHYSIOMESH hernia mesh medical devices from the marketplace. In Canada and other countries there was a Physiomesh recall.” Id.
  • Bard complains that from April 2016 to May 2017, “In all that time, the plaintiffs’ bar has spent tens of millions of dollars on advertising to patients who have received polypropylene hernia mesh products.”Id.
  • “Concurrently, the plaintiffs’ bar sought an MDL for cases involving this product, which the JPML approved in June 2017: In re: Ethicon PhysiomeshFlexible Composite Hernia Mesh Products Liability Litigation, MDL No. 2782. ” Id.”However, the number of cases involving Bard polypropylene hernia mesh has undergone a recent surge.” Id.  “Due to the recall, the Physiomesh MDL formation, and the continued growth in opportunistic attorney advertisements, Defendants have seen a swell of new cases related to Bard polypropylene hernia mesh products, which are the subject of the current MDL Motion.” Id.
  • “For instance, in April 2016, just before the Physiomesh recall, there were approximately 100 such cases pending in state and federal court. By May 2017, just before the Physiomesh MDL formation, there were approximately 110 of such cases pending. By the end of 2017, there were approximately 1,400 such cases. Currently, there are over 1,600.” Id.
  • “In all that time, the plaintiffs’ bar has spent tens of millions of dollars on advertising to patients who have received
    polypropylene hernia mesh products.” Id.

As a result of the possible MDL for Bard Mesh, a Ohio Judge weighs in:

“CLEVELAND — An Ohio federal judge has granted C.R. Bard Inc.’s request to stay a Ventralight hernia mesh action pending a federal panel’s decision to create a multidistrict litigation docket for arising from the defendant’s hernia mesh products. On July 2, Judge Sara Lioi of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Ohio explained that without a stay, Bard may face a hardship by having to defend the instant action in different forums. The judge added that the plaintiff will not be prejudiced by a stay because the case is in its early stages.”

The Rhode Island State Court hernia mesh lawsuits | Mesh lawsuit update

Bard’s mesh lawyers also provided hernia mesh lawsuit updates concerning hundreds of Bard mesh lawsuits pending in Rhode Island state Court. Many victims who may have missed a statute of limitations in another state are enjoying a seemingly endless statute of limitations if the matter against bard is filed in RI state Courts. Under RI law, the statute of limitations does not start until the victim knew  or should have known of Bard’s allegedly wrongful conduct. This is very different from a typical hernia mesh statute of limitations which in the vast majority of the states would begin to toll from the date the victim suffered complications from the surgical mesh and knew or should have known that the complications / side effects were caused by the mesh.

In good news for victims across the United states and perhaps across North America (including Canada), Rhode Island law probably applies to all hernia mesh lawsuits filed in Rhode Island state Courts. The reason for this is that Bard was previously headquartered in Rhode Island and Davol Inc. is currently headquartered in Rhode Island. (When Becton Dickinson (BD) acquired Bard in 2017, they moved the headquarters of Bard to New Jersey.

“In addition to the federal actions, there are two consolidated state actions involving Bard hernia mesh currently pending in Rhode Island Superior Court, where Davol is located. The first was set up at the same time as In re: Kugel Mesh Hernia Patch Products Liability Litigation, MDL-1842, and any discovery that occurred in this state court action became part of the MDL document repository. The second was created in 2017, and no discovery has occurred in those cases yet.” Id.

“As the years have passed, many of the cases in Rhode Island state court have resolved. However, within the last year alone, more than more than 1,500 cases have been filed there, including approximately 280 since the initial MDL Motion was filed on April 10. The transferee court (wherever it is located) will need to coordinate with the Rhode Island state court handling these actions, as well as with any other state court where similar cases may be pending.”Id.