Bard Hernia Mesh Lawsuit Update, 2024- Victims Winning 3 to 1 !!

Bard hernia mesh lawsuit update and timeline. Below you will find a timeline of important updates and events concerning Bard hernia mesh lawsuits as well as Hernia Mesh manufactured by Bard / Davol.  This post is effectively a hernia mesh lawsuit update (February 2024) concerning Bard mesh. C.R. Bard was recently purchased by Becton Dickinson (BD) and is now known as Bard Medical. Bard is incorporated in the State of New Jersey. Davol Inc. is a wholly owned subsidiary of C.R. BARD, INC. Davol was incorporated in the State of Delaware. Davol’s main office is in Warwick, Rhode Island. The hernia mesh lawsuit (bard mesh) timeline set forth in this article is very complicated and convoluted, to say the least. This expose was authored by a hernia mesh lawsuit lawyer. This post addresses the full array of Bard mesh from Marlex mesh, Ventralex to the Perfix Plug. Thousands of mesh victims filed Bard hernia mesh lawsuits against Bard and their corporate subsidiary, Davol, seeking compensation by way of settlements or legal judgment as a result of purported defective hernia mesh and hernia patches.

Bard Davol hernia mesh lawsuit update

 Bard Hernia mesh lawsuit Update 2024-

February 20th, 2024-  Judge Sargus, who is in charge of the Bard hernia mesh lawsuits in the Federal MDL, has required attorneys in the leadership of the litigation to engage in extensive mediations. These mediations will commence in early March of 2024. The judge is pushing for the lawyers to reach a global settlement of the Bard MDL claims.

In a case management order (PDF) set forth on February 16, the judge dictated that in-person mediations between victims’ attorneys and the manufacturer’s lawyers will commence on March 4, 2024. John Jackson is the Court appointed mediator. The judge is giving the parties three months to reach a global settlement, or Judge Sargus will return individual hernia mesh lawsuits to U.S. District Courts across the country for potential individual jury trials.

Judge Sargus mandated that, “Absent satisfactory resolution of this matter by the parties, or absent agreement of the parties to extend the deadline to allow for continuing discussions, the parties and Mediator shall notify the Court of an impasse by 5:00 P.M. on May 24, 2024,” . “If the parties have reached an impasse in their mediation efforts, then the parties shall confer on a joint proposal outlining a plan for moving this litigation forward, which will include suggestions for remand.”

February 18, 2024- The MDL Justice vacated the trial date for the fourth Bard MDL bellwether trial. The Court determined there had been enough bellwether trials for the lawyers to seek a global Bard hernia mesh settlement. In this writer’s opinion, this would tend to indicate that a global settlement of hernia mesh claims will be announced soon. Remember, the owner of Bard, Becton Dickinson, is a publicly owned company and even if a settlement has been reached, it probably cannot be announced yet. The judge’s statement that there is enough information for the parties to settle, seems to be a smokescreen for the inability to announce a settlement. Why would this  4th bellwether trial be scheduled for so long if they were not going to have the trial?

January 6th, 2024- The Fourth Bard hernia mesh jury trial in the Federal MDL in Ohio is scheduled scheduled for April 2024. This is the final MDL trial. The victim in the fourth trial suffered complications from a Bard 3DMax mesh. (Update 2/18/24 This trial was cancelled) There has been no global settlement in the Bard hernia mesh lawsuits.

January 1st, 2024-  There has been no global settlement of the Bard Hernia mesh cases pending in State or Federal Court. The Federal MDL has now been going for over 5 years. These are all individual cases that are consolidated in either Federal Court in Ohio or State Court in Rhode Island. There is no hernia mesh class action in the United States. There are currently over 20,768 lawsuits before the Honorable Justice Edmund A. Sargus, Jr (U.S. District Judge) in MDL -2846 known as “IN RE: Davol, Inc. / C.R. Bard, Inc., Polypropylene Hernia Mesh Products Liability Litigation.” There are over 15,000 Bard hernia mesh lawsuits pending in Rhode Island state Court.

December 27th, 2023- Judge Sargus responded to The Steering Committees request to remand the cases for individual trials in Federal Court across the Country by issuing a court order (PDF) which gives Bard’s defense lawyers 20 days to respond to the victims’ motion to remand. The victims hernia mesh attorneys will then have 10 days after to respond.

December 23rd, 2023- Victims request a Remand of Bard Hernia Mesh Lawsuits Victims filed a motion (PDF) on December 23, 2023. The victims’ Steering Committee Committee is requesting that the Court commence remanding the MDL lawsuits back to the Federal District Court where the case was originally filed. As a basis for this motion, victims asserted the complete lack of progess in achieving a global settlement. Plaintiff’s attorneys wrote,“(I)t is time for an order that contemplates and outlines a remand process to ensure that plaintiffs who have cases filed in this MDL – many of whom have been waiting for nearly six years – will see their day in court or otherwise reach a just resolution to their claims.” The steering Committee argued that the discovery phase and pretrial motions are over with and the 4th and last bellwether trial is scheduled for April 2024. “With the fourth bellwether trial being a mere three and a half months away, the time to set the remand wheels in motion by putting a remand mechanism in place, is now.”

SCORECARD FOR HERNIA MESH  LAWSUIT VERDICTS:

As of January 1st, 2024 there have been four test / bellwether Bard hernia mesh lawsuit jury trials across 2 consolidated proceedings. The victims have won three lawsuits and the manufacturer has won one lawsuit. (This scorecard does not include Bard hernia mesh lawsuit jury verdicts in the 2010 time period for the Kugel MDL in Federal Court)

Bard hernia mesh lawsuit updates- November 9th, 2023- Verdict in Favor of victim for 500k in Federal MDL. There was a $500,000 Verdict in favor of the mesh victim, Stinson, who had Bard Perfix mesh implanted. The federal jury found Bard liable for the defective mesh. The damages awarded were very low. However, this was still a big win for victims becuase the jury held Bard liable for the defective Perfix Plug mesh.

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 surgical mesh.

August 6, 2023 – MDL update in Ohio Federal Court:  “The parties previously selected a Bard PerFix Plug lawsuit filed by Robert Stinson, Jr. for the next trial date, which is scheduled to begin in October 2023. That case will be followed by a fourth trial, involving a Bard 3DMax lawsuit brought by Jacob Bryan, which is expected to go to trial in January 2024. Earlier this year, Bard attempted to postpone the start of these cases by having the court replace the selections with other bellwether candidates, arguing that the claims brought by Stinson and Bryan are no longer representative of most hernia mesh lawsuits against Bard.” About lawsuits

April 3rd, 2023- Rhode Island State Court Bard Consolidated Proceeding update:  A Rhode Island Superior Court Justice presiding over the Paul Trevino jury verdict for 4.8 million against Bard / Davol reduced the verdict by a paltry $250,000. Justice Licht wrote,”The Court concludes that reasonable minds could have come to different conclusions on whether Bard failed to use ordinary care to design the Ventralex patch to be reasonably safe and/or to adequately warn of the risk of harm from the Ventralex patch, and that failure to use ordinary care in the design and/or warnings of the Ventralex patch proximately caused or contributed to plaintiff’s injuries…Mr. Trevino testified that, as a result of his procedure, he lost his belly button resulting in a ‘crater’ in his stomach. … Mr. Trevino spoke of how it impacted playfulness with his grandchildren as he lives in Hawaii where going to the beach is something he enjoys but now he will no longer take off his shirt, which he did prior to the explant even with the prior long scar,”  In lowering the verdict, the Court reasoned that, “While the Court believes Mr. Trevino was entitled to recover for disfigurement, the Court finds that $500,000 is excessive and will grant a remittitur of $250,000.” The 86-page decision is Trevino v. Davol Inc., et al. Click here to review the entire text of Justice Licht’s opinion.

September 19, 2022- “The U.S. District Judge presiding over thousands of hernia mesh lawsuits pending against C.R. Bard in the federal court system has released a pretrial schedule for various deadlines leading up to the next bellwether trial, which is set to go before a jury in February 2023.” About lawsuits

8/28/22- “(Reuters) – Becton, Dickinson and Co’s C.R. Bard Inc subsidiary must pay $4.8 million in a lawsuit brought by a Hawaii man who said he suffered serious complications after being implanted with the company’s hernia repair mesh, a Rhode Island jury found Monday. The verdict for Paul Trevino and his wife Earlynn in Providence state court came after a month-long trial.” Reuters

 August 23, 2022-  “The U.S. District Judge presiding over all federal Bard hernia mesh lawsuits has appointed a settlement master to work with the parties and help facilitate negotiations that may resolve the litigation without the need for thousands of individual cases to be set for trial….Following two early trials with mixed results, Judge Sargus scheduled additional cases to go before juries in February 2023 and May 2023, but is now taking steps to guide the parties toward a potential Bard hernia mesh settlement in the litigation…In a case management order (PDF) issued on August 17, Judge Sargus announced that John Jackson has been appointed as settlement master in the litigation, to work with the parties to discuss whether an agreement can be reached to settle Bard hernia mesh lawsuits without the need for individual trial dates in each case.“ The settlement master will facilitate discussions among and between the parties as he deems necessary, appropriate and as directed by the Court, will provide status reports to the Court on a frequent and timely basis,” according to the order. “The settlement master shall have the power and authority to engage in ex-parte communications with all parties, counsel, and the Court.” About lawsuits

July 29, 2022-  The mesh victim’s “lawyers contend Becton’s Bard and Davol units used LyondellBasell Industries NV’s Pro-fax 6523 resin to strengthen its hernia mesh for at least 16 years, but hid that from Lyondell by using other companies to purchase the product for them, according to court filings. Plaintiffs contend the component was not safe and that Becton’s subsidiaries wanted the component because it was the strongest and cheapest resin on the market.” bloomberg

7/26/22- There is a crucially important hernia mesh jury trial underway in Rhode Island state court.  The lawsuit case caption is, Paul Trevino, et al. v. Davol Inc., et al., case number PC-2018-8437, in Providence / Bristol County Superior Court. The jury trial commenced on Tuesday, July 26th with opening statements. Jury selection occurred on July 18th, 2022. Associate Justice Richard A. Licht is the trial justice. The hernia mesh jury trial will be webcast gavel-to-gavel by Courtroom View Network.  “Plaintiffs Paul and Earlynn Trevino accuse Davol and Bard of marketing the Ventralex brand hernia mesh implant despite allegedly knowing the polypropylene resin used in the mesh causes reactions with human tissue that supposedly lead to symptoms ranging from chronic pain to infections to nerve damage.” CVN 

May 13, 2022- The victims in the second Bard bellwether trial, who were awarded a 255,0000 judgment, “filed a motion for new trial on damages (PDF) or, in the alternative, a completely new trial. The victims argued that, “Defendants improperly convinced this Court that the doctrine of avoidable consequences is not an affirmative defense and thus the Court did not instruct the jury that the burden of proof was on Defendants as to the mitigation of damages,” the motion states. “The damages calculation of the jury was therefore based upon an erroneous instruction of law pertaining to damages and the reduction of damages, which prejudiced Plaintiffs, likely affecting the damages award to both Mr. Milanesi and Mrs. Milanesi.” About lawsuits

“On the same day, the manufacturer filed a separate motion for judgment as a matter of law (PDF) in the case, calling for the Court to entirely overturn the verdict and rule in Bard’s favor on the plaintiffs’ charges of negligent design and loss of consortium claims. The manufacturer claims the plaintiffs failed to prove their hernia mesh was defective and did not establish causation, among other arguments.” Id.

April 15, 2022-  Small verdict for $255,000 against Bard in Federal MDL – A hernia mesh victim, Mr. Milanesi won a verdict for $255,000 in the 2nd Bard / Davol bellwether trial in Federal Court in the Southern District of Ohio. The $255,000 verdict in favor of the mesh victim included a $5,000 award to the victim’s wife for loss of consortium. The victim prevailed on a defective design claim. Is this win the type of verdict that the Plaintiff’s hernia mesh lawyers had sought? Obviously, the victims’ mesh attorneys would have preferred a multi-million dollar award in favor of the victim. However, the Plaintiff’s win was much needed good news for all hernia mesh victims and their mesh lawyers. If the victim had lost the 2nd bellwether trial, the entire MDL in Ohio could have been on life support because the mesh manufacturer’s law firm prevailed in the first bellwether trial. If the victim lost the 2nd bellwether trial, the 3rd bellwether trial would have been a must win for the Plaintiff’s or the entire consolidated lawsuit would be in jeopardy. A win is a win to a certain extent. Both sides have now won a trial and the record is 1 to 1. It was disappointing that the hernia mesh jury refused to grant punitive damages against Bard and awarded such a paltry sum to the victim. However, the most important takeaway from this “win” is that the jury found that Bard’s mesh was defective and held Bard liable for the victim’s suffering. The 5k award to the victim’s wife was shocking and could be considered a slap in the face to the victim’s family. It is somewhat troubling that the victim’s lawyers were only able to muster a small sum of $255,000 in a lawsuit that the Plaintiff selected from over 10,000 cases in an attempt to put their best foot forward. (The manufacturer selected the first bellwether trial that the manufacturer won.)

“In April 2022 the jury in Bard’s second bellwether trial found its Ventralex hernia mesh was defectively designed and unreasonably dangerous. “This is the first time in the 14-year history of various hernia mesh litigations that any jury ever has found for a plaintiff on a design defect theory,” said Antonio Milanesi’s attorney, Tim O’Brien. Antonio Milanesi and his wife Alicia Morz De Milanesi, of Pensacola brought the case against C.R. Bard after Antonio had to undergo revision surgery in 2017. According to the complaint, Milanesi developed a high grade post-operative bowel obstruction, which required a third surgery.” Lawyers and settlements

April 13, 2022: The defense mesh lawyers rested their case on 4/12/2022 right after calling Dr. Kevin Gillian to the stand. Bard called Dr. Gillian in an attempt to blame the hernia mesh surgeon for the victim’s mesh complications. Additionally, the court ruled that Dr. Jimmy Hays could also testify in rebuttal.

April 8, 2022 –  In the Bard / Davol hernia mesh lawsuit bellwether trial in Federal Court in Ohio is now in its 6th week. The Plaintiff’s hernia mesh attorneys have rested their case and the defense has commenced calling their witnesses.

3/23/22- The parties commenced opening statements in the 2nd bellwether trial in the MDL in the Southern District of Ohio. The victims lawyers called their first witness via videotape: former Davol President Daniel LaFever.

3/22/2022-  The 2nd bellwether trial in the Bard MDL in Federal Court, Antonio Milanesi v. C.R. Bard, commenced on March 3rd, 2022 with Jury selection occurring.

1/25/22- Over 5,000 Bard Davol lawsuits in Rhode Island State Court have reached settlements. The Bard settlement amounts are confidential. This was not a global settlement as only a certain law firm reached a settlement. There are more settlements expected in the future in Rhode Island. There have been no settlements in the Bard Ohio federal Court MDL. Settlement amounts will likely be determined by third party auditors. Settlement offers will likely depend on the number of revision surgeries and the complications from those surgeries such as infections, abscesses, etc. The amount will be reduced by the number of co-morbidities that could lead to revision surgeries.

1/10/22- The 2nd Bellwether Hernia Mesh jury trial, Antonio Milanesi v. C.R. Bard, was scheduled before justice Edmund A. Sargus on Monday, January 10th, 2022. Due to a needed and unexpected surgery of one key member of defense counsel, the court determined that it had no choice but to postpone the Ventralex hernia mesh trial. The  jury trial was continued to March 21, 2022. The second MDL bellwether jury trial pertains to design defect allegations. The victim alleges that the design defect resulted in an infection and a small bowel fistula. The victim alleges that the mesh adhered to the small bowel, causing erosion. This allegedly resulted in a small bowel resection, anastomosis and mesh removal surgery. The victim alleged the defective mesh lead to permanent and life altering injuries.

12/15/21 – As of December 15, 2021 there are 14,847 filed pending Bard lawsuits in the Federal Court MDL in the Southern District of Ohio. The 2nd bellwether trial is scheduled for January 10th, 2022.  The 2nd bellwether trial is a trial selected by the victim’s lawyers. There are also thousands of Bard mesh cases still pending in Rhode Island State Court.

9-9-21- In the first MDL hernia mesh bellwether trial in Ohio Federal Court, a jury rendered a verdict in favor of of the defendant, Bard / Davol. The jury had a very short deliberation. This was a very disappointing loss to the Plaintiff’s trial team.  The Victim, Mr. Johns, was awarded awarded zero compensation for his injuries and pain and suffering caused by Bard Ventralight hernia mesh. This is a big setback for all hernia mesh victims because the trial judge allowed the possibility of punitive damages awarded to the victim. The Defendant’s attorneys selected the Johns case to be a bellwether trial. This case was not representative of the other hernia mesh lawsuits in the MDL as a result of the peculiarities of Mr. John’s medical condition. The judge pointed this out to the lawyers involved but Defense counsel insisted on moving forward with this particular lawsuit as a bellwether trial, nonetheless. There are reports that the judge was disappointed that the defendant’s selected an unrepresentative case to be the first bellwether trial. The Victim’s lawyers have the next two bellwether selections. Mr. Johns pursed his lawsuit “to recover for injuries sustained as a result of the implantation of Defendants’ allegedly defective Ventralight ST device. Plaintiff claimed that Defendants knew that polypropylene is unsuitable for permanent implantation in the human body.  The crux of Plaintiff’s claims was that the ST coating on the Ventralight ST resorbs too quickly.  This leads to the exposure of bare polypropylene to internal organs and tissues, increasing the risk of potential complications. Plaintiff alleged that this occurrence led to omental adhesions after his laparoscopic hernia repair surgery in 2015. Id. The following claims were argued at trial: design defect, under negligence and strict liability theories; failure to warn, under negligence and strict liability theories; breach of express warranty; breach of implied warranty; breach of implied warranty of merchantability; negligent misrepresentation; and punitive damages. Id. at *6–25. Trial commenced on August 2, 2021 and lasted for approximatelyfive and a half weeks. On September 8, 2021, the jury returned a verdict for Defendants.”  denial of motion for a new trial

7/30/21-  First bellwether Trial, the Johns case in the MDL in the Southern District of Ohio, federal Court, is set for trial. “Becton, Dickinson and Co subsidiary C.R. Bard will face trial on Monday over claims that its hernia repair surgical mesh is defective, offering the first test of the potential strength of thousands of lawsuits by plaintiffs around the country alleging that the products caused pain, inflammation and infection.” Reuters

7/10/21- “Last week, in In re Davol, Inc./C.R. Bard, Inc., Polypropylene Hernia Mesh Products Liability Litigation, the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Ohio held that an expert may not opine on the intent or state of mind of a corporation and that a historical recounting of internal company documents is not permissible expert testimony. —F. Supp. 3d—, 2021 WL 2646797, at *6-7 (S.D. Ohio June 28, 2021). The decision limits the ability of plaintiffs to exploit corporate documents in expert reports and testimony without appropriate expert analysis.” Mondaq

4-21-21- “In Providence County Superior Court, the case of Rudd v. Davol. [PC-2018-0482] settled. The settlement amount has not been disclosed. “Jonathan Orent of Motley Rice only verified to Mesh News Desk that the case settled prior to trial…..The Rudds filed their products liability case in 2018. Mr. Rudd had been implanted with Ventralex six years earlier to repair an umbilical hernia. He claims he was not informed of the risks associated with the polypropylene (PP) mesh implant.” Mesh medical news

4-6-21- There was a Bard Bellwether trial scheduled for April 6, 2021 in RI State Court. As a result of COVID 19 the trial will be rescheduled to a later date.

3/15/21- There are 11,145 Bard hernia mesh lawsuits pending in the MDL in the Southern District of Ohio.

3/9/21– “In a case management order (PDF) issued on March 9, Judge Sargus indicates the first bellwether trial is now scheduled to begin on August 2, 2021 involving claims presented by Steven Johns. It appears the Court intends to hold the trial in-person, indicating counsel will meet in Judge Sargus’ chambers every day while the trial is ongoing.” About lawsuits

2/26/21- “Bard filed an objection (PDF) to the plaintiffs’ selection of a Bard Perfix Plug case filed by Robert Stinson, Sr. as the third bellwether trial, indicating that it does not present facts and questions that will provide a meaningful example of how juries may respond to other claims in the litigation.” About lawsuits

Bards’ lawyers argue that the Stinson case is not representative and should not be a bellwether case. They further asserted that Stinson “would not provide an informative verdict.” The victim’s attorneys filed a brief opposing the motion. The Plaintiffs brief states: “The plaintiffs indicate the parties can learn valuable information from a trial involving the Stinson case, and argue the defendants waited too long to raise this objection objection.” Id.  The attorneys argued that it is unfair to remove Stinson as a bellwether stating,”  “[F]or over a year, Defendants expended their own and the PSC (Plaintiffs’ Steering Committee)’s time and resources preparing the Stinson case for trial without voicing any concerns regarding its representativeness” before attempting to reject it as a bellwether. “The PSC submits that Defendants’ belated challenge of Stinson’s representativeness should be rejected.” Id.

9/2/2020-  BIG preliminary decision in favor of Victims!! A significant decision in favor of the Bard / Davol victims in Federal Court MDL– occurred when Judge Edmund A. Sargus, Jr. denied the Defendant’s motion for summary judgment. “C.R. Bard Inc. and Davol Inc. must face most of a Utah man’s claims in the first test trial in multidistrict proceedings over its polypropylene hernia mesh devices, the Southern District of Ohio said. And Steven Johns may seek punitive damages, the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Ohio held Tuesday, saying he raised fact issues concerning alleged misrepresentation or concealment of certain risk information that could lead a jury to conclude the companies acted willfully or recklessly.” Bloomberg Law

Edmund A. Sargus, Jr. ruled that “Plaintiff has presented sufficient evidence to establish genuine issues of fact exist as to whether Bard’s intentionally fraudulent conduct or displayed knowing and reckless indifference.” Specifically, there are genuine issues of fact as to whether Bard misrepresented or concealed information regarding the timing of the resorption of the ST and the substantial risks associated with such early resorption—such as the exposure of bare polypropylene to the visceral organs—that could lead a jury to conclude they acted willfully or recklessly. Accordingly, Bard’s motion for summary judgment on Plaintiff’s claim for punitive damages is DENIED, subject to renewal, if appropriate, after evidence is presented at trial.” Johns v. CR Bard (In re Davol, Inc./C.R. Bard, Inc., Polypropylene Hernia Mesh Prods. Liab. Litig.)

5/24/2020– There are two consolidated Bard / Davol polyproplene hernia mesh lawsuits pending. There is a consolidated State Court Bard lawsuit in Rhode Island State Court as well as a consolidated Multidistrict litigation In Federal Court. Individual Bard hernia mesh lawsuits can still be filed in State Courts across the United States. “According to recent court records, about 500 new cases are being filed each month throughout the federal court system, and the total number of Bard hernia mesh cases may near 10,000 by the end of the year.” About Lawsuits

April 2020- There was a hernia mesh jury trial scheduled in April 2020 in Rhode Island state Court. This matter settled before the trial commenced.

Federal Court update- 01/06/24:

• The Bard cases in Federal Court are pending in Multidistrict Litigation (MDL -2846) in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Ohio before Presiding Justice Edmund A. Sargus, Jr (Chief Judge, USDC).
• The MDL is known as, “IN RE: Davol, Inc./C.R. Bard, Inc., Polypropylene Hernia Mesh Products Liability Litigation”
• United States District Court Southern District of OHIO- MULTIDISTRICT LITIGATION 2846- 2:18-md-2846 — IN RE: Davol, Inc./C.R. Bard, Inc., Polypropylene Hernia Mesh Products Liability Litigation Presiding Judges: Honorable Edmund A. Sargus, Jr., Chief United States District Judge and Honorable Kimberly A. Jolson, United States Magistrate Judge
• As of  January 6th, 2024, 2023,there are currently over 21,000 lawsuits before the Honorable Justice Edmund A. Sargus, Jr (U.S. District Judge) in MDL -2846 known as “IN RE: Davol, Inc./C.R. Bard, Inc
• The Fourth and last hernia mesh MDL bellwether jury trial is scheduled for April 2024. The Plaintiff’s lawyers have filed a motion to remand the cases for individual trials in Federal Courts across the U.S.
• “On January 24, 2020, the Court selected Johns v. C.R. Bard et al., Case No. 2:18-cv01509 as the first Bellwether Trial Case that will be tried in this multidistrict litigation (“MDL”). Due to the impact of the coronavirus (COVID-19) outbreak, this trial has been rescheduled to Monday, July 13, 2020.”  CASE MANAGEMENT ORDER NO. 23-A
• “On January 24, 2020, the Court selected Milanesi et al. v. C.R. Bard et al., Case No. 2:18- cv-01320 as the second Bellwether Trial Case that will be tried in this multidistrict litigation (“MDL”). Due to the impact of the coronavirus (COVID-19) outbreak, this trial has been rescheduled to Tuesday, September 29, 2020.” CASE MANAGEMENT ORDER NO. 29
• On 5/5/20 the Court scheduled a pretrial conference for the first bellwether trial, Johns v. C.R. Bard et al on 9/29/20. The Court ordered, “The first Bellwether Trial Case is scheduled for trial on Tuesday, September 29, 2020, at 9:00 a.m. in Courtroom 2. Trial counsel shall meet in the chambers of Judge Sargus at 8:30 a.m. on each day of the trial. The first final pretrial conference shall be held on Wednesday, September 9, 2020, at 9:00 a.m. in the chambers of Judge Sargus. All trial counsel must appear.” Read the CASE MANAGEMENT ORDER NO. 23-B Pretrial and Trial Schedule for First Bellwether Trial Case.

RI State Court lawsuit update- 1/01/24:

• In 2022, a mesh victim won a 4.7 million dollar verdcit against Bard Davol in RI State Court.
• Over 5,000 mesh cases pending in RI State Court have settled.
• Thousands of hernia mesh cases against Bard/ Davol are now pending in Providence Superior Court in a consolidated State Court Proceeding.
• On May 5, 2017 the Providence RI Superior Court, “set up a multi-case management coordinated proceeding for all subsequent filings alleging personal injuries from Davol / C.R. Bard hernia mesh products. Administrative Order No. 2017-02.” IN RE: DAVOL/ C.R. BARD HERNIA MESH PROCEDURAL ORDER NO. 1  Many victims who have missed a statute of limitations in their state of residence decide to file in this lawsuit because RI has an extended statute of limitations for Bard/ Davol hernia mesh.
• Only victims implanted with mesh made of polyproplene manufactured by Bard / Davol may file lawsuits in the consolidated proceeding.
• The litigation is currently titled: “IN RE: DAVOL/ C.R. BARD HERNIA MESH”
• “The primary Bard Hernia Mesh state litigation, pending in Rhode Island state court under Judge Gibney, is now set to begin its first bellwether trials that will focus on claims involving the Ventralex patch product, and proceed to trials involving the Composix E/X product.” Mass Torts Blog
• Victims across the United State with Bard mesh who file in Rhode Island may entitled to a nearly endless deadline. (extended statute of limitations)
• “The primary Bard Hernia Mesh state litigation, pending in Rhode Island state court under Judge Gibney, is now set to begin its first bellwether trials that will focus on claims involving the Ventralex patch product, and proceed to trials involving the Composix E/X product.” National law review

“Publicly available information, published by DAVOL and BARD, indicates that BARD considers DAVOL to be a division of BARD. Indeed, DAVOL’S website directs consumers to contact customer service via BARD’s email address. Furthermore, employees of these corporations consider BARD and DAVOL to be one in the same. Finally, the hernia mesh products at issue in this case are advertised and sold on the BARD website… DAVOL acts as an agent for BARD as it is merely a business conduit of BARD.” IN RE: DAVOL/ CR. BARD HERNIA MESH MESH MULTI—CASE MANAGEMENT, MASTER LONG FORM COMPLAINT AND JURY DEMAND

Victims get extended statute of limitations, nearly endless

Victim’s may be surprised to learn that there is a long lasting, extended deadline to file a hernia mesh lawsuit against Bard / Davol, if the lawsuit is filed in Rhode Island state courts. In some circumstances, the statute of limitations deadline for justice and compensation against Bard could be over 10 to 20 years!  Bard mesh victims are seeking settlements or legal judgments from Bard as a result of the alleged defective surgical mesh. Bard’s hernia mesh medical devices have been subject to numerous mesh recalls. Will there be a hernia mesh recall in 2019? Will there be a Bard Davol hernia mesh lawsuit settlement 2019? No one can accurately predict whether such a hernia mesh settlement will occur. Many victims are wondering what are the hernia mesh patch recall symptoms. Others are researching whether there has been a Marlex mesh recall. Many people are unaware of Bard’s checkered past in which Bard plead guilty in 1993 to 391 felonies and three Bard executives were sentenced to 18 months in jail. Below you will find a mesh lawsuit update pertaining to Bard/ Davol mesh.

Before we get to the detailed and extensive Bard hernia mesh lawsuit timeline, It is important to explain the current status of the Bard hernia mesh lawsuits. The vast majority of the Bard mesh lawsuits are pending in the following places:

1993- Bard pleads guilty to 391 felonies and several executives sentenced to time in the can pertaining to heart catheters

This blog post is not only a mesh lawsuit update concerning Bard/ davol hernia mesh it also provides pertinent information to consumers and victims. No one should be surprised that Bard faces thousands of lawsuits pertaining to allegedly defective hernia mesh. No one should be surprised that Bard continues to manufacture and profit from defective hernia mesh, despite the suffering and immeasurable pain of victims. Was Bard a criminal enterprise in the early 90’s, as far as heart catheters were concerned? Has Bard shown remorse? Has Bard been rehabilitated after pleading guilty to 391 felonies? Can we trust Bard to be a good corporate citizen? Will Bard reach a 2018 hernia mesh settlement  of pending hernia mesh lawsuits?

Bard Medical- Felonious past

in 1993, CR Bard plead guilty to 391 felonies resulting from Bard’s manufacturing and marketing Heart Catheters. Three Bard executives were convicted of felonies and sentenced to 18 months in the big house. “The essential facts of this case are as follows. C.R. Bard, Inc. has pled guilty to 391 felonies. These are one count of conspiracy, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 371; 17 counts of mail fraud involving submissions to the Food and Drug Administration (“FDA)”, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1341; eight counts of submitting false statements to the FDA, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1001; 363 counts of shipping adulterated medical devices, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 333(a) (2), including 75 counts of shipping medical devices from an unapproved facility, 108 counts of shipping products that had been changed without the required FDA approval of that change, and 98 counts of shipping devices for human testing where such testing had not been approved; and two counts of failing to submit required reports to the FDA, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 333(a) (2).” 848 F. Supp. 287 (1994) UNITED STATES of America v. C.R. BARD, INC. Cr. No. 93-10279-WF. United States District Court, D. Massachusetts. April 8, 1994.

This was such a serious matter that the then FDA commissioner weighed in by stating, “For a company to engage in a pattern of using unsuspecting patients as guinea pigs and operating rooms as laboratories for unapproved products shows a blatant disregard for the health and safety of the patients who literally entrusted their lives to the company’s products,” FDA Commissioner David Kessler. Drug Watch

“These are serious criminal violations. In essence, Bard knowingly and willfully kept adverse information from the FDA, made product changes that affected the safety or effectiveness of angioplasty catheters produced by its USCI Division without the required FDA approval, and illegally did testing on human beings without the required exemption from the FDA.” 848 F. Supp. 287 (1994) UNITED STATES of America v. C.R. BARD, INC. Cr. No. 93-10279-WF. United States District Court, D. Massachusetts. April 8, 1994.

1995-  Bard submits an FDA premarket notification for Visilex hernia mesh

On 07/31/1995, Davol Inc. a subsidiary of C.R. Bard submits an FDA premarket notification for “BARD VISILEX MESH 3 X 6” Bard Asserted that the device classification name was: “Mesh, Surgical, Polymeric” The FDA approved the mesh on  09/26/1995.

1996- Surgical Sense Inc. submits FDA application for Kugel™ Hernia Patch

On August 5th, 1996 Surgical Sense Inc. from Arlington Texas submitted a 510(k) application pursuant to 21 CFR 807.9  for the Kugel™ Hernia Patch. Surgical Sense Inc. classified this medical device as surgical mesh. Surgical Sense Inc. alleged that the “Kugel Hernia Patch” was substantially equivalent to: “Atrium Polypropylene mesh.” They asserted to the FDA that the “intended use of the Kugel hernia Patch is a surgical mesh for reinforcement of a hernia defect” Federal Drug Administration (FDA), Kugel Hernia Patch 510 (k) summary

6 REASONS WHY RI IS BEST PLACE TO FILE A HERNIA MESH LAWSUIT AGAINST BARD / DAVOL

LONG-LASTING STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS IN BARD HERNIA MESH LAWSUITS IN RHODE ISLAND

1997- Davol introduces Composix hernia patch

“In 1997, Davol released the Composix™ Hernia Patch, a forerunner to the CK Patch.The Composix patch is composed of two layers of polypropylene mesh for tissue ingrowth on the abdominal side, and a layer of ePTFE on the other side to prevent bowel adhesion to the mesh. The Composix patch does not contain a ring. Prior to placing the Composix patch on the market, Davol conducted animal testing by implanting the patch into the abdominal cavity of pigs. Davol submitted the testing results in a so-called 510(k) application to the Food and Drug Administration (“FDA”) in order to get clearance to market the Composix patch.” CHRISTOPHER THORPE and LAURE THORPE, Plaintiffs v.  DAVOL, INC. and C.R. BARD, INC., Defendants. C.A. No. 008-463ML MDL Docket No. 07-1842ML In Re: Kugel Mesh Hernia Repair Patch Litigation https://www.lawyersandsettlements.com/articles/kugel-mesh/interview-kugel-mesh-lawsuit-patch-20010.htm

Bard Davol hernia mesh settlement 2023

2000- Davol aquires the Kugel™ hernia patch from Surgical Sense Inc.

Davol Inc is a subisidary of Bard. “Davol acquired the Kugel™ hernia patch from Surgical Sense Inc., which marketed the Kugel patch for several years.”  Id. “Eventually, the CK Patch was designed with two layers of polypropylene mesh, a layer of ePTFE, and a PET memory recoil ring welded between the layers of polypropylene mesh. The XL CK Patch featured larger sizes, two PET rings, and placement pockets for easier deployment of the patch.” Id. “Because Davol considered the XL CK Patch products a modification to an existing product (the one-ringed CK Patch in small and medium sizes), it made an internal determination that a 510(k) submission to the FDA was not warranted.”  http://lawyersusaonline.com/wp-files/pdfs-3/thorpe-v-davol.pdf

On 03/02/2000 the FDA gave clearance to Genzyme to market SEPRAMESH pursuant to the controversial 510(k) premarket approval process. The 510k summary was required pursuant to 21 CFR 807.92. Read the  510(k) summary here. Genzyme asserted that Sepramesh was substantially similar to other hernia mesh that was on the market at that time: Bard Mesh, Bard Composix Mesh and Mersilene Mesh manufactured by Ethicon. (In 2007, Bard essentially became the owner of Sepramesh.)

August 25, 2000:  Davol / Bard submitted an application to the FDA for the Composix E/X Mesh Patch. “On August 25, 2000, Davol / Bard submitted an application to the Federal Drug Administration to notify of its intent to market the Composix E/X Mesh Patch for use in the reconstruction of soft tissue deficiencies, such as for the repair of hernias and chest wall defects. Thereafter, the 510k Application was approved by the FDA and the Composix E/X Mesh Patch was classified as a Class II medical device.” Id.  Beasley Allen 

“The Composix E/X Mesh Patch was designed, manufactured, sold and distributed by DAVOL to be used by surgeons for hernia repair surgeries and was represented by DAVOL to be an appropriate, cost-effective and suitable product for such purpose.” http://www.beasleyallen.com/news/federal-court-expands-scope-of-kugel-mesh-hernia-patch/

2002- Here comes the XL CK Patch and Ventralex Patch

In 2002, the XL CK Patch medical device was sold for the first time Id. In 2002, medical doctors began reporting problems with the Composix Kugel Mesh Patch. “A growing number of physicians began to report major abdominal injuries in their patients which stemmed from broken memory recoil rings in the patches.” Legal tube

On July 16th 2002, the FDA  approved the premarket notification submitted by Davol for the Ventralex Patch. Bard got the Ventralex Patch approved by using the Bard Composix Kugel Mesh as the predicate device.  Davol asserted that the Ventralex patch was substantially similar to the Bard Composix Kugel Mesh. Davol asserted that the “The Ventralex Patch is intended for use in all hernia repairs requiring reinforcement with a nonabsorbable support material.”

2003- problems emerge with CK Patch

In the 2003 time period, “Davol first learned of a ring break in its CK Patch product line in 2003…In October 2003, Davol decided to enhance the weld strength of the memory recoil rings in all its CK patch products.” Id.

2005-  XL CK patch recalled by Davol – hernia mesh recall

“Between December 2005 and January 2007, Davol initiated and expanded a product recall of certain CK Patch models following some reports from the field that memory recoil rings had broken…The CK Patch was the predicate product for a number of other Bard polypropylene hernia mesh devices, including Ventralex and Ventrio. In March 2012, Defendants stopped selling the CK Patch, while it continued to sell a number of other hernia repair products.” Bard objection

“The CK Patch was the predicate product for a number of other Bard polypropylene hernia mesh devices, including Ventralex and Ventrio.” Id.

“By mid to late 2005, Davol became aware of an increase in reported ring breaks in the XL CK Patch. Davol initiated a Corrective and Preventive Action (“CAPA”) investigation into the complaints. Davol also communicated the complaints to the FDA, informing it that the exact cause of the ring breaks was undetermined and that a recall did not appear warranted at that time.” Id.

“On August 31, 2005, production of XL CK Patches was halted while Davol investigated ring break complaints. Distribution of the XL CK Patches was discontinued on December 8, 2005.” Id.

“In a December 21, 2005 letter from Karen Kane (“Kane”) Manager of Davol’s marketing department, the sales force was advised that XL sizes of the CK Patch were being recalled because “the strength of the memory recoil ring may not withstand aggressive manipulation that may sometimes be applied during the placement of these extra-large sizes.. Kane further stated that customers asking for XL sizes of the CK Patch should be advised that the XL CK Patches were “currently not available and that Customer Service is offering the equivalent sizes of the Composix EX as an alternative.” Id.

“In December 2005, Bard initiated a recall of extra-large models of the CK Patch following reports that memory recoil rings were breaking. In March 2006, Bard expanded the recall to other models, specifically the 202 and 204 CK Patches manufactured before January 2004, as well as model 209 CK Patches manufactured before March 2006.” BOBBY DON BOWERSOCK, and CHARLOTTE ROBINSON as CoPersonal Representatives of the Estate of Georgia J. Bowersock, deceased, and MARK BOWERSOCK Individually, Plaintiffs, vs. DAVOL, INC., C.R. BARD, INC. ORDER ON DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

December 22, 2005:  Class 1 Device Recall Bard  Bard Composix Kugel Mesh X-Large Patch Oval with ePTFE, 8.7” x 10.7”  Code: 0010206

The Composix Kugel Mesh Patch was recalled in the United States by the FDA. This Patch was manufactured to be used for ventral or incisional hernias. The reason for the recall was that the memory recoil ring was frequently breaking. Victims have been reporting dozens of hernia mesh patch recall symptoms.

“December 27, 2005: C.R. Bard notifies US customers of a voluntary Class I recall of the Bard Composix Kugel Mesh X-Large Patch by letter delivered via Federal Express. The recall is issued after reports that a component of the patch, known as the memory recoil ring, may not withstand certain stresses associated with specific surgical placement techniques. Breakage of the memory recoil ring can cause bowel perforations and chronic intestinal fistulae. At the time, approximately 32,000 units had been sold worldwide.’  Lawyers and settlements

“On December 28, 2005, Davol issued an “Urgent Product Recall for the XL CK Patch to Distributor: (Hospital Administrator, Materials Manager, O.R. Manager, Surgeon).  Pltfs.’ Ex. 676. Davol informed its customers that it was voluntarily recalling three product codes of the XL CK Patch because it had received complaint reports of the PET recoil ring breaking which could potentially lead to bowel perforation and/or chronic enteric fistulas. We have identified a rate increase of recoil ring breaks since the introduction of these product codes in 2002. We estimate the frequency of these reported events to be in the range of 0.08%.” ” http://lawyersusaonline.com/wp-files/pdfs-3/thorpe-v-davol.pdf

2006- XL CK Patch recall is expanded- hernia mesh recall

In 2006, Bard recalled Kugel Mesh. The expanded class 1 FDA recall on Febuary 22nd  2006 included “certain lots of the Large Oval and Large Circle products, as well as all lots of the Oval product” Id. The recalling firm was: “Davol, Inc., Sub. C. R. Bard, Inc.”

Here is a list of the recalled products:

1.  Bard Composix Kugel Mesh X-Large Patch Oval With EPTFE, 8.7” X 10.7” Code: 0010206
2. Bard Composix Kugel Mesh X-Large Patch Oval With EPTFE, 8.7” X 10.7” Code: 0010206
3. Z-0762-06 – Bard® Composix® Kugel Oval, 6.3” X 12.3” For Hernia Repairs Product Code: 0010209
4. Z-0760-06 – Bard® Composix® Kugel Large Oval, 5.4” X 7” For Hernia Repairs Product Code: 0010202
5.  Z-0761-06 – Bard® Composix® Kugel Large Circle, 4.5” For Hernia Repairs Product Code: 0010204
6. Z-0526-06 – Bard Composix Kugel Mesh X-Large Patch Oval With EPTFE, 7.7” X 9.7” (19.6cm X 24.6cm) Code: 0010208

(“Recalled for potential for ring to break leading to bowel perforation and/or chronic enteric fistula.”) Drug Watch

March 24, 2006: “An urgent letter is sent by Bard to hospital administrators advising them that the Class I recall has been expanded to include certain lots of the Large Oval and Large Circle products, as well as all lots of the Oval product. A letter sent to distributors of the Kugel Mesh Patch states that the recall includes lots manufactured up to and including December, 2003, and notes that “there is a risk that the welds could break under the stress placed on the large sized products during placement, which could lead to potential patient complications such as abdominal pain, bowel perforation or chronic enteric fistulas….Finally, a letter is sent to surgeons the same day requesting that they immediately stop using the specific products listed in the recall and give copies of the Important Patient Management Information to professionals who are managing patients already implanted with the recalled products. The expanded recall is issued because Davol, Inc., has learned of further ring breaks, including cases of bowel perforation, ring migration through the abdominal wall, bowel obstruction, and one instance in which a patient died after developing septic shock, consumptive coagulopathy and acute myocardial infarction from surgery to repair bowel fistulas caused by perforation from the broken ring.” https://www.lawyersandsettlements.com/articles/drugs-medical/kugel-mesh-timeline-00568.html

Expanded Composix Kugel recall- class 1 recall

April 3, 2006: “The US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and Davol, Inc (a subsidiary of C.R. Bard, Inc), have notified healthcare professionals regarding the expansion of a class 1 recall for a ventral hernia repair device ( Bard Composix Kugel Mesh Patch) to include all lots of the oval “midline” size (product code 0010209), and lots manufactured before 2004 of the large oval (0010202) and large circle (0010204) products. The recall previously affected only the extra-large oval patch.”

“The recall is due to the potential for breakage of the “memory recoil ring” under the stress of placement into the intraabdominal space, leading to bowel perforation and/or chronic enteric fistulae, according to an alert sent yesterday from MedWatch, the FDA’s safety information and adverse event reporting program. ” http://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/529032

On June 2nd, 2006 the FDA issued a decision approving BARD EXTRA LARGE COMPOSIX KUGEL HERNIA PATCH pursuant to the FDA 510(k) Process. The FDA determined that the BARD EXTRA LARGE COMPOSIX KUGEL HERNIA PATCH  was substantially similar to the following predicate devices: Composix Kugel Mesh https://www.accessdata.fda.gov/cdrh_docs/pdf6/K061314.pdf

On October 23rd, 2006 the FDA issued a decision approving Bard / Davol’s premarket notification for BARD COMPOSITE L/P MESH pursuant to the FDA 510(k) Process. The FDA determined that BARD COMPOSITE L/P MESH  was Substantially Equivalent (SESE) to the following predicate devices:

• Bard Large Pore SoftTmMesh Pre-Shaped, K052155 (Davol Inc,), FDA cleared on 10/20/2005;
• Bard Composix® EIX Mesh, K002684 (Davol Inc.), FDA cleared on 10/11/2000;
• Davol Delivery System (currently marketed as Precision Pass Laparoscopic Delivery Device), K041641 (Davol Inc.), FDA cleared on 07/01/2004.

“December 18, 2006: A lawsuit is filed against Davol, Inc. related to the Kugel Mesh Patch. The plaintiff in the case, filed in Rhode Island, claims failure of the Kugel Mesh Patch resulted in severe pain and required bowel dissection surgery to remove the Patch, which had become stuck to the plaintiff’s bowel. The bowel dissection surgery resulted in chronically inflamed bowels. Lawyers for the plaintiff argue that Davol, Inc., knew that there was a possibility of failure in the Kugel Mesh Patch but did not properly warn the public.” Lawyers and settlements

2007- Davol recalls  Bard^®Composix^® Kugel^® Large Sized Patch and Bard^® Composix^® Kugel^® Large Oval and Bard^® Composix^® Kugel^®Large Circle

2007 time period:  The Rhode Island State Courts set up a multi-case management proceeding primarily for Kugel Cases. This multi case management proceeding was set up at the same time that the Federal Court MDL, In re: Kugel Mesh Hernia Patch Products Liability Litigation MDL-1842 was set up. In 2018 Bard conceded that, “As the years have passed, many of the cases in Rhode Island state court have resolved.” Bard Response in 2018 

“In 2007, this Court set up a multi-case management coordinated proceeding for cases primarily involving Davol/C.R. Bard Composix Kugel Hernia Patch. While the litigation focused on the Composix Kugel Hernia Patch, some cases involved other Bard hernia products such as the Composix E/X Mesh, Ventralex Hernia Patch, Composix Hernia Patch, Kugel Hernia Patch, CK Parastomal Patch and Modified Kugel Patch. See Administrative Order No. 2007-6. Significant discovery was done as part of that coordinated proceeding with a primary focus on the Composix Kugel products.” Procedural order

Exapanded Composix Kugel Patch Recall-  Large Oval and Large Circle

(This multi-case management proceeding was the precursor for the current RI State Court Consolidated Proceeding which commenced in 2017 for Polyproplene hernia mesh manufactured by Bard and their subsidiary Davol Inc.)

January 10, 2007: Davol extends the recall to include Large Sized Composix Kugel Patches (oval and circle) due to additional reports of memory recoil ring breakage. Another product with the same component design is also recalled because of the potential for breakage.” https://www.lawyersandsettlements.com/articles/drugs-medical/kugel-mesh-timeline-00568.html

January 10, 2007 the following medical devices were recalled by the FDA:

• Bard Composix Kugel Hernia Patch Large Oval with EPTFE, 5.4” x 7”
• Bard Composix Kugel Hernia Patch Large Circle with EPTFE, 4.5”

(recalled as a result of ring breakage causing Bowel Perforation and “chronic enteric fistula.” https://www.drugwatch.com/hernia-mesh/)

Bard/ Davol stated, “Davol is expanding the voluntary recall of specific lots of Bard ^® Composix ^® Kugel ^® Large Oval and Large Circle Patches. Immediately discontinue use of the specific product codes and lot numbers listed in the attachment. Additionally, please immediately distribute copies of the Important Patient Management Information to clinicians who may have implanted, or who may be managing, patients already implanted with one of these products under voluntary recall.”  HERNIA REPAIR IMPORTANT PATIENT MANAGEMENT INFORMATION: Bard^® Composix^® Kugel^® Large Sized Patch Class I Recall and Market Withdrawal Product Code: 0010202, Bard^® Composix^® Kugel^® Large Oval, 5.4”x7.0” Product Code: 0010204, Bard^® Composix^® Kugel^® Large Circle, 4.5   https://www.davol.com/clinical-support/product-recall-information.

The Composix Kugel Multidistrict litigation in RI Federal Court

June 22, 2007: The Judicial Panel on Multi District Litigation (JPML) issued a transfer order “for combined cases which involved allegations of defects in various models of hernia patches manufactured and sold by Bard, Davol or Surgical Sense.” Risley v Davol and Bard, Davol In re Kugel Hernia Repair Patch Litigation, MDL Docket No. 07-1842-ML.

“On June 22, 2007, the JPML created In re: Kugel Mesh Hernia Patch Products Liability Litigation, MDL-1842, and ordered that all cases involving the CK Patch be transferred to the U.S. District Court for the District of Rhode Island before Judge Mary Lisi. On January 24, 2008, the MDL further defined the products to be included: “a. All nine (9) models of Bard® Composix® Kugel® Hernia Patches (Product Codes 0010201 through 0010209); b. All other Davol hernia patches with PET rings, including the Bard® Kugel® Hernia Patch; Bard® Ventralex® Hernia Patch; Bard CK Parastomal Patch; and Bard® Modified Kugel™ Patch; and c. Other Davol hernia meshes composed of layers of polypropylene and ePTFE, including Bard® Composix® E/X.” (Practice and Procedure Order No. 6, In Re: Kugel Mesh Hernia Patch Products Liability Litigation, MDL No. 1842, Doc. 248 (D.R.I. Jan. 24, 2008); Bard response

On December 17, 2007 C.R. Bard essentially purchased Sepramesh. “MURRAY HILL, N.J., Dec 17, 2007 (BUSINESS WIRE) — C. R. Bard, Inc. (NYSE: BCR) today announced that it has entered into a license agreement with Genzyme Corporation (Nasdaq: GENZ), headquartered in Cambridge, Massachusetts, to manufacture and market the Sepramesh® IP hernia repair product line and to incorporate the related Sepra® coating technology into the development of future hernia repair applications. Bard’s Davol subsidiary, located in Cranston, Rhode Island, will begin marketing the line immediately. Details of the agreement were not disclosed.” CR Bard press release

2008- Federal Judge Expands consolidated lawsuits | hernia mesh lawsuit

“On January 8, 2008, a Federal Court judge in Rhode Island expanded the scope of the consolidated proceedings involving hernia patches manufactured by Davol / Bard to cover all Davol Marlex / Teflon products, with or without “memory recoil rings.” http://www.beasleyallen.com/news/federal-court-expands-scope-of-kugel-mesh-hernia-patch/

On October 07, 2008 the FDA determined that BARD 3DMAX MESH is substantially similar to:

• Bard Mesh (Davol Inc.)
• Bard 3DMAX Mesh (Davol Inc.)
• Usher’s Marlex Tubular Mesh (Davol Inc.)

As a result of that determination, the FDA approved Bard / Davols’ 510(k) premarket notification for BARD 3DMAX MESH and the medical device was allowed to be marketed to the public.

On December 08, 2008 C.R. Bard initiated a class 3 recall of its surgical mesh:

• Bard 3D Max Mesh, Left large, Sterile Pre-formed Knitted Polypropylene Product Code: 0151531

The FDA listed the manufacturer reason for recall as “Mislabeled: Product labeled as Left large, may contain a Right Large.” The FDA described the reason for the recall of this Bard 3Dmax mesh was “Mixed-up of materials/components”

According to the FDA,  Davol took the following actions: “Davol issued a letter notification dated 12/25/08 via Federal Express requesting accounts discontinue use, remove product from inventory and return product. For additional information, contact Davol at 1-401-463-7000.” Recall No. Z-0935-2009

2009- BARD PERFIX LIGHT PLUG

On August 11, 2009 Justice Gibney, the chief Justice of the Rhode Island Superior Court, issued a decision which stated in pertinent part, “By order of the Presiding Justice, dated March 8, 2007, all filings in Providence County Superior Court alleging personal injuries from Kugel Mesh hernia repair patches were assigned to this Court for multi-case management. (Administrative Order No. 2007-6.) The order authorizes this Court to dispose of any and all pre-trial motions related to this litigation and to preside over trials, should any occur. Id. The order further empowers this Court to “issue special orders for the due administration of these causes of action.” Id.” https://cases.justia.com/rhode-island/superior-court/Brokaw%20v.%20Davol%20(Assessment%20Order)%20(final).pdf

On December 8, 2009 the FDA determined that BARD PERFIX LIGHT PLUG, MODELS 0117050, 0117060, 0117070, 0117080, 0117150, 011716  is Substantially Equivalent (SESE) to the predicate devices of:

• Bard® Soft Mesh (Davol Inc.)
• Bard® Mesh Dart (Davol Inc.)
• Bard® PERFIXTM Plug (Davol Inc.)
• Mersilene Mesh (Ethicon, Irnc.)

The FDA approved Bard / Davol’s 510(k)  FDA premarket notification and approved BARD PERFIX LIGHT PLUG, MODELS 0117050, 0117060, 0117070, 0117080, 0117150, 011716  to be marketed to the general public. The device description in the 510(k) summary for  BARD PERFIX LIGHT PLUG, MODELS 0117050, 0117060, 0117070, 0117080, 0117150, 011716 was “The Proposed Product, Bard® PERFIXT Light Plug is a pre-formed three-dimensional (cone shape) device constructed of a fluted outer layer and multiple inner layers of mesh attached at the tip.” 510(K) SUMMARY OF SAFETY AND EFFECTIVENESS

Read more here: 3DMAX HERNIA MESH LAWSUITS: SAY IT AIN’T SO FDA!

2010- Bard wins first bellwether hernia mesh trial, victim wins 2nd bellwether trial

In NORMA OLMO and NELSON OLMO v DAVOL, INC. and C.R. BARD, INC., Justice James Cohn, in Dicta, summarized the bellwether cases in the Kugel Multidistrict litigation in Rhode Island.  “Throughout the multidistrict litigation, plaintiffs have presented two general defect and causation theories: (1) a “break” of a memory recoil ring in the CK Patch; and (2) a “buckle” in which the polypropylene side of the CK Patch came into contact with the bowel. The Panel selected one “break” and one “buckle” case to serve as bellwether cases. The “buckle” case, Whitfield v. Davol Inc., No. 1:07-cv-001918, 1:07-md-01842, MDL No. 1842 (D.R.I.), ended in a defense verdict in favor of Bard. The “break” case, Thorpe v. Davol Inc., No. 1:08-cv-0463, 1:07-md-01842, MDL No. 1842 (D.R.I.), ended in a verdict in favor of the plaintiffs, but the court granted Bard’s motion for judgment as to punitive damages and failure to warn.”

Bard/ Davol wins first Bellwether trial in Kugel MDL – John Whitfield v. Davol

1st Bellwether Trial:  In Kugel Patch MDL Ends In Defense Verdict: Hernia mesh attorneys lose first hernia mesh trial. “PROVIDENCE, R.I. — (Mealey’s) The first bellwether trial involving the Kugel surgical mesh patch ended in a defense verdict on April 14 when a Rhode Island federal jury found that the plaintiff had not proven that his injuries were directly caused by or contributed to by negligent design of the device (In Re:  Kugel Mesh Hernia Patch Litigation, MDL Docket No. 1842, No. 07-1842; John Whitfield v. Davol, Inc., et al., No. 07-1918, D. R.I.). A nine-member jury in the U.S. District Court for the District of Rhode Island, where the Kugel mesh hernia patch multidistrict litigation is centralized, found that plaintiff John Whitfield did not prove that the CK (Composix Kugel) patch was defectively designed or inadequately labeled or that defendants C.R. Bard Inc. and subsidiary Davol Inc. were negligent in labeling the device. Lexis Nexis  

Plaintiff’s win 2nd Kugel MDL bellwether trial- 1.5 million

2nd Bellweather trial:  Hernia mesh attorneys win 1.5 million verdict! “PROVIDENCE, R.I. – (Mealey’s) The second Kugel surgical patch bellwether trial went to the plaintiff Aug. 23 when a Rhode Island federal court jury awarded $1.5 million to a man who claims that the device caused him internal injuries (In Re:  Kugel Mesh Hernia Patch Litigation, MDL Docket No. 1842, No. 07-1842, Christopher Thorpe v. C.R. Bard, Inc., et al., No. 08-463, D. R.I.).” Plaintiff Awarded $1.5 Million In Second Bellwether Trial In Kugel Hernia Patch MDLA jury in the U.S. District Court for the District of Rhode Island, where the Kugel multidistrict litigation is centralized, found that manufacturing defendants Davol Inc. and C.R. Bard Inc. inadequately designed the Kugel patch and failed to warn plaintiff Christopher Thorpe or his doctor that the device could fail.  The jury awarded Thorpe $1.3 million and his wife, Laure Thorpe, $200,000 for loss of consortium. ” https://www.aboutlawsuits.com/settlements-kugel-hernia-mesh-problems-19474/  https://www.lexisnexis.com/legalnewsroom/litigation/b/litigation-blog/archive/2010/08/23/plaintiff-awarded-1-5-million-in-second-bellwether-trial-in-kugel-hernia-patch-mdl.aspx?Redirected=true

According to law 360, “A jury has awarded $1.5 million to a North Carolina couple injured by allegedly defective hernia patches, but won’t get the chance to impose punitive damages, according to a federal judge overseeing multidistrict litigation against C.R. Bard Inc. and a subsidiary.  Christopher Thorpe won $1.3 million Monday in the second of four bellwether trials in the U.S. District Court for the District of Rhode Island, with wife Laure Thorpe taking home $200,000 for loss of consortium. The couple had claimed that Bard’s Composix Kugel surgical mesh patches were unreasonably designed and carried inadequate warning of risk.  Judge Mary M. Lisi, however, ruled in a minute entry Monday that the plaintiffs fell short of their burden to show the malicious intent, disregard for safety or egregiously wrongful acts necessary to merit punitive damages.”  Law360

“Mr. Thorpe’s injuries required him to undergo multiple surgeries to repair the damage caused by the defective hernia patch, injuries from which he continues to suffer due to the serious nature of the physical damage caused by the patch. The jury found that the defendants proximately caused Mr. Thorpe’s injuries by failing to provide adequate warning or instruction for the hernia repair patch and acting unreasonably in designing the patch. The jury also found that the defendants’ negligence proximately caused Laure Thorpe to lose the consortium of her husband as a result of his injuries and subsequent physical and emotional suffering.”  PR web

“Dr. Ducheyne was permitted to render expert testimony in Thorpe over Defendants’ objection. However, Dr. Ducheyne’s testimony in Thorpe is distinguishable. There, Dr. Ducheyne offered the specific opinion that scar contracture may have caused the well-documented ring break in Thorpe’s CK Patch. Dr. Ducheyne explained in detail how he arrived at this conclusion and relied on: (1) his personal observation of, among other things, “a sample patch, the explanted patch, Thorpe’s medical and surgical records, and the images made of the patch”; (2) “the generally known and accepted phenomenon of contraction due to scar tissue formation”; and (3) “the known properties of polypropylene.” UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA CASE NO. 13-62260 NORMA OLMO and NELSON OLMO, Plaintiffs, v. DAVOL, INC. and C.R. BARD, INC., Defendants. OMNIBUS ORDER, Thorpe v. Davol, Inc., No., C.A. 008-463ML, 2011 WL 470613, at *17, *25 (D.R.I. Feb. 4, 2011)

Ventralight approved

On July 15, 2010 The FDA determined that VENTRALIGHT ST MESH,  a Class II Surgical Mesh, is Substantially Equivalent (SESE) to the predicate device of Sepramesh IP Bioresorbable Coating/Permanent Mesh (K040868, K053066, K063739) 510k summary

The FDA approved Bard / Davol’s 510(k) premarket notification and approved VENTRALIGHT ST MESH to be marketed to the general public. The device description in the 510(k) summary for VENTRALIGHT ST MESH was “The Ventralight ST Mesh is a low profile, sterile, single use device indicated for use in the reconstruction of soft tissue deficiencies, such as for the repair of hernias.” Id.

2011- Bard opens up pocket book and pays peanuts to several thousand victims who each filed a hernia mesh lawsuit

July 11, 2011:  “C.R. Bard has reportedly reached an agreement to settle Kugel hernia mesh lawsuits brought by about 2,600 people who experienced severe internal injuries caused by problems with their hernia repair patches, with in an average payout of about $70,000 for each plaintiff. However, the settlement still leaves around 1,000 claims unresolved….” Id. These settlements were negotiated by top hernia mesh product liability attorneys.2011

“Law360, New York (July 1, 2011, 3:24 PM EDT) — C.R. Bard Inc. said Thursday it had tentatively agreed to pay $184 million to settle the majority of claims in a Rhode Island multidistrict litigation over allegedly defective hernia patches. In a U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission filing, the medical equipment manufacturer said it had reached agreements in principle with scores of plaintiffs who claim they suffered significant injuries because of faulty Composix Kugel surgical mesh patches manufactured by Bard subsidiary Davol Inc.”https://www.law360.com/articles/255403/bard-offers-184m-to-settle-hernia-patch-suits 

After the Bard, Kugel 184 million dollar hernia mesh lawsuit settlement, the multidstrict litigation pending in Federal Court in RI was officially disbanded in 2017. Many victims did not accept the settlement and many cases were transferred to Rhode Island State Courts.

2012- The end of the CK Patch | Marlex hernia mesh study released

March 2012: “In March 2012, Defendants stopped selling the CK Patch, while it continued to sell a number of other hernia repair products.” Bard objection

July 2012: “In this published report in the Journal of the American Board of Family Medicine,  Jan-Feb 2012, doctors from Dewitt Amy Hospital, Fort Belvoir, VA, determined irritable bowel syndrome (IBS) can be caused by a mesh complication. In this case a 50-year-old woman had Marlex hernia mesh implanted 13 years earlier to treat periumbilical herniorrhaphy or a protrusion of fat or intestines outside of the muscle. It shows up as a bump near the bellybutton. The woman had one bowel movement a week and symptoms diagnosed as IBS. Large amounts of Marlex were found in her stool and a colonoscopy diagnosed her with IBS. She received Zelnorm and MiraLAX  but that did not relieve the trapped umbilical hernia. The Marlex mesh “had fully eroded into the lumen of the small bowel, causing a partial obstruction” and something called fecalization.  Doctors resected a section of small bowel and the patient was relieved of her IBS-like symptoms. This case raises the possibility that mesh might erode into the bowel causing symptoms that might be written off as IBS unrelated to mesh.”   https://www.meshmedicaldevicenewsdesk.com/when-marlex-mesh-erosion-appears-as-irritable-bowel-syndrome/

2013- The Generic discovery process concludes in the Bard Kugel Federal Court multidistrict litigation

“Generic discovery as to the CK Patch and other MDL products concluded in the MDL in 2013, by which time Defendants had produced over 7 million pages of documents. More than thirty depositions of Defendants’ current and former employees were taken in the prior MDL. Additional document productions have taken place in other cases.” Id.

2014- Here comes the Bard Perfix Plug

July 2014:  The Federal Court in Rhode Island stopped accepting new cases in the Bard Multi District Litigation. “In July 2014, the District of Rhode Island stopped accepting new cases into the MDL.”  Bard Response 

October 08, 2014: Bard PerFix Light Plug was subject to a Class 2 Device Recall.The Manufacturer Reason for this Mesh, surgical, polymeric Recall was “The patient record peel-off label product code and size did not match the other labeling and actual product in the packaging for the Bard Small PerFix Light Plug”

The FDA’s description of the issue was a bit more simplistic, describing the problem as “Error in labeling.” As a result of the recall, Davol took the following action: “Davol Inc. (Subsidiary of C.R. Bard, Inc) sent Customer Notification letters on Friday, October 10, 2014, via FedEx next day delivery with signature confirmation to all affected customers. The letter identified the product the problem and the action needed to be taken by the customer.” Id.

In 2017, Kugel multi-case management coordinated proceeding pending in RI State Court since 2007 officially expands to other Bard hernia mesh medical devices

Febuary 23, 2017: Federal Court judge dismisses the Bowersock hernia mesh lawsuit because experts either lacked qualifications or their testimony was unreliable. “For the reasons stated herein, the Defendants’, Davol, Inc. and C.R. Bard, Inc., Motions in Limine to exclude the testimony of Dr. Stephen Ferzoco (Dkt. 33) and Dr. William A. Hyman (Dkt. 39), as well as the Motion in Limine to limit the testimony of Dr. Roland Kohr (Dkt. 37), are GRANTED; in addition, Defendants’, Davol, Inc. and C.R. Bard, Inc., Motion for Summary Judgment (Dkt. 30), is GRANTED. The Court will enter judgment accordingly.” BOBBY DON BOWERSOCK, and CHARLOTTE ROBINSON as CoPersonal Representatives of the Estate of Georgia J. Bowersock, deceased, and MARK BOWERSOCK Individually, Plaintiffs, vs. DAVOL, INC., C.R. BARD, INC., Defendants. No. 1:08-cv-01313-LJM-TAB, ORDER ON DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

“A District Court in Indiana recently awarded summary judgment to a medical device manufacturer upon finding the plaintiffs were unable to proffer any expert causation evidence that satisfied the requirements of Federal Rule of Evidence 702 and Dabuert. See Bowersock v. Davol, Inc., No. 108CV01313LJMTAB, 2017 WL 711849, at *1 (S.D. Ind. Feb. 23, 2017).  Plaintiffs, representatives of the Estate of Georgia Bowersock, alleged that a hernia patch manufactured by C.R. Bard, Inc. (“Bard”) and implanted in Bowersock was defective and ultimately led to her death.  Bard moved for summary judgment and to exclude the testimony of Plaintiffs’ experts Dr. Stephen Ferzoco and Dr. William Hyman, as well as to limit the testimony of Dr. Roland Kohr.  The court agreed that these experts lacked qualifications or failed to put forth reliable testimony on medical causation, and thus, Plaintiffs could not establish a violation of the Indiana Products Liability Act.” https://product-liability.weil.com/expert-issues/hernia-patch-case-tossed-out-along-with-expert-causation-opinions/

April 7, 2017: IN SETBACK FOR BARD VICTIMS, IN THE OLMO MESH LAWSUIT, A FEDERAL COURT DISMISSES A HERNIA MESH LAWSUIT. A judge for the UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT for the SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA sitting in Fort Lauderdale, Broward County Florida dismissed a hernia mesh lawsuit, CASE NO. 13-62260. The hernia mesh lawsuit was filed by mesh victim NORMA OLMO  who alleged that extra-large Composix Kugel hernia patch (“CK Patch”)  manufactured by C.R. Bard and Davol Inc. was defective and caused her complications, side effects and serious symptoms. The hernia mesh lawsuit was entitled: NORMA OLMO and NELSON OLMO, Plaintiffs, v. DAVOL, INC. and C.R. BARD, INC., Defendants. The Federal Court judge issued an Omnibus order which stated in pertinent part, “Defendants’ Motion to Exclude the Testimony of Plaintiffs’ Expert Dr. Paul Ducheyne, Ph.D. [DE-MDL 5188] is GRANTED. Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment [DE-MDL 5185] is GRANTED. Summary judgment is entered in favor of Defendants and against Plaintiffs. The Court will enter a separate Final Judgment consistent with this Order.” OMNIBUS ORDER

In the Olmo hernia mesh lawsuit, “The judge determined that the plaintiff’s expert did not perform tests to establish his theory concerning the Composix Kugel hernia patch (“CK Patch”) The expert did not provide proper scientific studies to support his conclusions regarding the Bard Composix Kugel hernia patch (“CK Patch”) OMNIBUS ORDER

May 5, 2017: The Rhode Island State Court issues Administrative Order No. 2017-02 setting up a multi-case coordinated proceeding for all hernia mesh cases against Bard/ Davol. “..this Court set up a multi-case management coordinated proceeding for all subsequent filings alleging personal injuries from Davol / C.R. Bard hernia mesh products.” Procedural order #1 IN RE: DAVOL/ C.R. BARD HERNIA MESH 

• Bard mesh that is included in the Rhode Island  Coordinated Proceeding: Bard Mesh, Composite Prosthesis (also known as Composix), Composix E/X Mesh, Composix Kugel Hernia Patch, Kugel Hernia Patch,  Marlex Mesh, Modified Kugel Hernia Patch, PerFix Plug,  SpermaTex,  Ventralex Hernia Patch,  Ventralex ST Hernia Patch, Ventrio Hernia Patch,  Ventrio ST Hernia Patch,  Visilex Mesh, 3DMaX Mesh and Sepramesh IP Composite . All other Bard mesh not included in RI  consolidated lawsuits.

Kugel hernia mesh MDL pending in RI federal Court closed

June 2017: “In June 2017 shortly before retiring, Judge Lisi transferred the MDL to Chief Judge William E. Smith of the District of Rhode Island” 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 

September 2017: In September 2017, The Rhode Island Federal Bard multidistrict hernia mesh litigation was terminated. “In September 2017, upon Judge Smith’s recommendation, the JPML terminated the MDL.” Bard Response 

“Mealey’s (September 19, 2017, 4:20 PM EDT) — WASHINGTON, D.C. — The 10-year-old Kugel mesh hernia patch multidistrict litigation was marked closed Sept. 15 by the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation (JPMDL) (In Re:  Kugel Mesh Hernia Patch Products Liability Litigation, MDL Docket No. 1842, JPMDL).  On Sept. 8, Chief Judge William E. Smith of the U.S. District Court for the District of Rhode Island recommended that the JPMDL terminate the MDL because two bellwether trials have been held and all non-Rhode Island cases have been settled or remanded to their original court.  He said the only remaining cases are those that originated in the District Court.” Lexislegalnews The MDL’s master case list was closed Aug. 31.

State Bard hernia mesh consolidated lawsuits commence in RI State Court

November, 2017: Chief Justice Gibney issued her first procedural order in the Bard/ Davol multi-case coordinated proceedings which stated in pertinent part, “While the litigation focused on the Composix Kugel Hernia Patch, some cases involved other Bard hernia products such as the Composix E/X Mesh, Ventralex Hernia Patch, Composix Hernia Patch, Kugel Hernia Patch, CK Parastomal Patch and Modified Kugel Patch.”  Procedural order #1 IN RE: DAVOL/ C.R. BARD HERNIA MESH 

Hundreds of hernia mesh cases against Bard are now pending in Providence Superior Court. The consolidated litigation is currently titled: “IN RE: DAVOL/ C.R. BARD HERNIA MESH” Master Docket No. PC-2018-9999

2019: “Currently, there are two trials scheduled in the Rhode Island state court litigation in 2019 – one in June and one in September; although those dates are tentative and may be subject to change. These initial trials are called bellwether trials. A bellwether case is selected through a lengthy process in the courts to be tried as, essentially, a “test case” to help anticipate the outcome of future similar cases. It would not be feasible for the courts to address the thousands of cases filed across the country, so the cases are consolidated for pretrial purposes.”  https://www.natlawreview.com/article/bard-hernia-mesh-litigation-update

Many victims have filed in Rhode Island to get the benefit of Rhode Island’s nearly endless statute of limitations for hernia mesh lawsuits.

6 REASONS WHY RI IS BEST PLACE TO FILE A HERNIA MESH LAWSUIT AGAINST BARD / DAVOL

LONG-LASTING STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS IN BARD HERNIA MESH LAWSUITS IN RHODE ISLAND

Becton Dickinson acquires Bard for 24 Billion

December 29, 2017: In 2017: Becton, Dickinson & Co. which is a medical technology company and is more known as BD. BD acquired C.R. Bard, Inc.,commonly known as Bard, for $24 billion.  The two combined corporations will have over $16 billion in revenue per year and over 65,000 employees. Bard is now a wholly owned subsidiary of BD. “Medical technology company BD (Franklin Lakes, NJ) announced on Dec. 29, 2017, that it has completed the acquisition of CR Bard Inc. for $24 billion. By acquiring CR Bard, which plays a leading role in the development and manufacture of vascular, urology, oncology and surgical specialty products, BD said in a press release that it is creating a “new healthcare industry leader with approximately $16 billion in annualized revenue.” Plastics Today

The OLMO lawsuit: Plaintiff’s lawyer suffer setback

February 7, 2018: The United States Court of appeals for the Eleventh Circuit affirms the summary judgment dismissal ruling in favor of the defendant, Bard in the Norma Olmo hernia mesh lawsuit. This was the lawsuit related to Kugel “CK Patch.” The Court ruled in a short decision, “We have had the benefit of oral argument and have carefully reviewed the briefs and the summary judgment record in this case. The learned intermediary doctrine provides that the manufacturer’s duty to warn runs to the physician, not directly to the patient. If the physician had independent knowledge of the risk that caused the plaintiff’s injuries – substantially the same knowledge as an adequate warning should have communicated – then the plaintiff cannot prevail on a failure to-warn claim. Christopher v. Cutter Laboratories, 53 F.3d 1184, 1192 (11th Cir. 1995). We agree with the district court that the physician who implanted the instant patch had such independent knowledge. With respect to the patch that was implanted in plaintiff, there is insufficient evidence that the ring in the patch buckled. For the foregoing reasons, including reasons fully explained at oral argument, the judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.  NORMA OLMO, NELSON OLMO  v NORMA OLMO, NELSON OLMO, THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT. Read decision here.

March 20, 2018: “The New Jersey Superior Court’s appellate division refused to reinstate a hernia mesh product liability lawsuit against Becton Dickinson’s C.R. Bard because expert witnesses couldn’t prove the design of the product was defective or that significant negligence occurred.” Source

“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,” the judges wrote. Id. “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.

2018- Victim’s seek a new centralized  Federal Court Bard / Davol Multidistrict litigation in Ohio

• Physiomesh™
• Proceed 
• Prolene
• Ultrapro hernia mesh

Covidien:(Formerly Tyco)

• Parietex

Atrium:

• C-Qur (Lap – no FX)

Bard/ Davol

• Visilex
• Composix
• Composix EX
• Spermatex
• 3D Max (no 3D Max Lite)
• Sepramesh
• Perfix Plug
• Ventralex
• Ventrio hernia mesh
• Kugel (criteria – confirmed ring break and revision)

Many victims are wondering:

• Can I file a Covidien hernia mesh lawsuit?
• What do I need to know before I file a defective medical device hernia mesh lawsuit?
• How can I get a hernia mesh settlement as a result of my defective medical device?
• Will there be a hernia mesh settlement and how do I get a mesh lawsuit update?
• What are the Kugel mesh hernia patch side effects?
• How can i find out if surgical  has been subject to a Bard mesh recall and the Bard mesh recall lot numbers?
•  Will I have hernia mesh symptoms and complications years later?
• What are hernia mesh patch recall symptoms?
• What is the Bard mesh price?
• Has the mesh in my body been subject to a bard hernia mesh recall?
• Was there a marlex mesh recall? When was the marlex mesh recall?
• Is Bard biological mesh an option if my surgeon does not want to use Bard polypropylene mesh?
• What are the bard mesh perfix plug recall lot numbers?
•  How can I find out more about bard mesh perfix plug?
• Has there ever been a marlex mesh recall?

Bard Davol is a frequent flier using and abusing the shady and controversial FDA 510(k) Premarket Notification process. Over and over again, Bard Medical utilized mesh with an extensive, known history of victim complications as a predicate device to get allegedly defective hernia mesh to the market without proper clinical trials. It is apparent that the FDA 510(k) application process is the root of the problem for defective hernia mesh. The FDA 510(k) application is a controversial process which allows medical device manufacturers to fast track medical devices while evading FDA testing protocol. see also: SAY IT AIN’T SO! : FDA ALLOWS RELEASE OF DEFECTIVE HERNIA MESH 

Drug Safety News devastating assessment of Bard Davol:

According to Drug Safety News: “It isn’t the first time C.R. Bard has run afoul of the law. In 1993, the company pleaded guilty to 391 criminal charges involving defective catheters that had been illegally modified and sold without regulatory approval. Three company executives were convicted and jailed on charges of fraud and conspiracy, and Bard wound up paying $61 million in fines and penalties. More recently, the company has been called to account over pelvic meshes and IVC filters.

In Drug Safety News opinion: “The latest fiasco with Kugel Meshes clearly demonstrates that C.R. Bard is a repeat offender. Unfortunately, because Bard is a “corporate” person and not a natural human, there is no way to jail it and make sure it doesn’t harm anyone else.” https://drugsafetynews.com/2017/04/24/bard-medical-defective-hernia-patches/

Info about Bard hernia Mesh provided by a hernia mesh lawyers:

According to  My drug Justice: “Mesh products that have reports of serious problems and were manufactured by Davol C.R. Bard include:

•      Bard 3D Max Inguinal Hernia Mesh
•      Bard Davol Supramesh Composite
•      Composix Kugel Mesh Patch
•      Marlex mesh
•     Bard Ventralex ST Hernia Patch
•     Bard Mesh PerFix Plug” Baron and Budd

Hernia surgery is one of the most common types of surgeries that are performed. It is estimated that every year as many as 750,000 people undergo hernia repair surgery. When a patient is diagnosed with a hernia surgery is the only permanent treatment possible. While some patients may be able to wait to determine the severity of the situation, in many cases surgical care is needed to resolve the problem and keep it from worsening. Mesh patches are often necessary in hernia repair.

Repair of small incisional hernias, of less than 3 centimeters, are able to be repaired with the patient’s tissue. Larger hernias require the use of prosthetic materials such as mesh to provide a repair that is tension-free. Some of these materials are synthetic and may cause a host of complications when used in hernia surgeries.

Mesh Patches Made of Marlex Polypropylene

Patches made of Marlex polypropylene are designed to be used in laparoscopic hernia surgery. The material is flexible so that it can be folded to fit into a small incision. Once inside, it is opened to expand so that it covers the desired area. Unfortunately, there have been many medical problems and complications for patients with C.R. Bard mesh patches and others.

Marlex polypropylene is a type of manmade material that is non-absorbable. This means that the body does not absorb it, so it never disintegrates into the body. Instead, it remains in its original structure, although it may break, move, or weaken during use. The result is a hernia solution that can cause medical problems for patients.

Victims have many questions about hernia mesh including:

History of C.R. Bard Mesh Patches

Mesh patches are utilized to strengthen the area of repair. Hernia surgery has become more common over the last 30 years since various repair materials have been more readily available. Flexible sheets of materials are manufactured to be used as support for the repair. Polypropylene is a synthetic material that is not absorbable by the body. Therefore, it can cause some complications once it has been put into place.

The most common problems that occur in patients from the use of mesh patches are migration and erosion. Migration happens when the mesh patch moves or changes position inside the body. This can occur when tissues grow around the patch and push it out of place. The patch can actually move into a position where it can damage the intestines or create a blockage. Patches may also erode over time, creating the need for additional surgery to repair the hole that is left.

Complications from Mesh Patch Use:

Although not everyone suffers complications, many people have reported injuries and complications. Mesh subject to a bard hernia mesh recall is more likely to lead to mesh complications among victims. Do not forget that C.R. Bard is now known as Bard Medical.

Many victims have filed hernia mesh lawsuits as a result of these serious symptoms and mesh complications. The most common hernia mesh complications include:

• Pain
• Swelling
• Adhesions
• Infections
• Migration of mesh
• Obstructions

Complications may occur at any time after surgery but are most likely to happen months or years after the original surgical hernia repair was completed. Those who suffer from subsequent pain or other symptoms should immediately seek medical treatment. A complete doctor’s examination and diagnosis will determine the cause of the problem. Subsequently, the patient must be treated for complications due to the use of a mesh hernia patch.

Treatment of Complications

When a patient presents with a medical complication from a hernia mesh implant the cause of the problem may not be immediately known. Some symptoms may not appear for months or even years after the initial surgery. A different doctor may evaluate the patient, and the type of mesh implant that was inserted may not be noted. These details can make it difficult to evaluate and treat the patient.

Immediate care typically involves the use of pain medication and prescriptions to reduce inflammation. Once a diagnosis has been made, the patient will most likely require surgery to assess the internal damage and make the necessary repairs. The surgeon may try to remove at least part of the original patch; however, this can be difficult to do because the body’s tissue grows onto it. Instead, some of the patch will be taken out, and repairs will need to be done, sometimes using additional mesh products.

Recall of Surgical Mesh | Hernia mesh lawsuit

C.R. Bard mesh patches have been reported to cause injuries to some patients. Injuries range in severity, and some are life threatening. The injuries were caused allegedly by defects in the mesh material that caused the product to shift or move inside the body or to break while implanted. The result may be a puncture to the bowel, an obstruction to the intestines, an infection, or other problems that can be severe. The U.S. Food and Drug Administration, FDA, requires companies to follow strict guidelines for testing and product safety. Any complications should be reported to the FDA by both the patient and physician. In addition, patients may seek compensation by filing a lawsuit.

Litigation History and Current Status

C.R. Bard manufactures a number of different types of mesh implants. Complications have been reported with the use of Kugel Hernia Mesh, 3D Max, PerFix Plug, Ventralex ST Hernia Mesh and Sepramesh. The company still manufactures and sells these products. Various lawsuits have been filed against the company for injuries sustained by the use of mesh hernia implants. The lawsuits are based on the fact that the company was made aware of medical problems but did not take action to prevent further injuries from occurring. Additionally, the company did not properly warn patients of the potential for injuries caused by the use of mesh hernia products. Nothing was done to correct possible product defects.

Those who were injured because of complications from the use of hernia mesh should speak with a hrnia mesh attorney as soon as possible. Victims may be entitled to compensation for medical and other expenses that were incurred because of the defective products. To qualify for a lawsuit an individual must have received a mesh implant as part of original hernia surgery and then later suffered from complications. Medical documentation is necessary to show that the complications were a result of a defective implant. Individual lawsuits are possible, or there may be class action lawsuits that victims may take part in.

The FDA speaks

“Many complications related to hernia repair with surgical mesh that have been reported to the FDA have been associated with recalled mesh products that are no longer on the market. Pain, infection, recurrence, adhesion, obstruction, and perforation are the most common complications associated with recalled mesh. In the FDA’s analysis of medical adverse event reports to the FDA, recalled mesh products were the main cause of bowel perforation and obstruction complications.” FDA

Please contact a hernia mesh lawyer for legal representation. A hernia mesh lawyer will help you get justice and compensation by either a judgment or settlement for your hernia mesh complications/revision surgery. Many victims are wondering if there will be a surgical mesh settlement. Other victims are wondering what the average settlement amount is for a hernia mesh lawsuit.

Hernia mesh lawsuits have been filed across the United States. Many of these lawsuits have been consolidated in Multi District Litigation (MDL). Here are some of the most significant Multi District Litigation:

• MDL No. 1842 | In Re: Kugel Mesh Hernia
  Repair Patch Litigation UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
  FOR THE DISTRICT OF RHODE ISLAND (This was disbanded in 2017)
• MDL No. 2753 | In Re: Atrium Medical Corp. C-Qur Mesh
  Products Liability Litigation,  UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
  FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE (Global settlement in 2023)
• MDL No. 2782 | In RE: Ethicon Physiomesh Flexible
  Composite Hernia Mesh Products Liability Litigation, United States District Court for the Northern District of Georgia (Global settlement in 2023)

What is a hernia?

“A hernia occurs when an organ pushes through an opening in the muscle or tissue that holds it in place. For example, the intestines may break through a weakened area in the abdominal wall. Hernias are most common in the abdomen, but they can also appear in the upper thigh, belly button, and groin areas. Most hernias aren’t immediately life-threatening, but they don’t go away on their own. Sometimes they can require surgery to prevent potentially dangerous complications.” healthline

Bard’s checkered past | Bard is a Guilty of 391 Felonies

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and Department of Justice (DOJ) pursued a wide scale investigation into C.R. Bard. The Department of Justice Criminally criminally indicted Bard and six executives in 1993. The criminal indictment against Bard alleged that Bard knew problems with the catheter it manufactured, but refused to disclose the red flags to the Federal Drug Administration. The criminal indictment alleged that Bard lied to the Federal Drug Administration concerning animal testing in order  to rush a particular type of catheter model to be sold to the public. The indictment alleged that Bard engaged in human testing of a catheter catheter that lacked FDA approval.

 Bard Hernia mesh lawsuit update 2024

“For a company to engage in a pattern of using unsuspecting patients as guinea pigs and operating rooms as laboratories for unapproved products shows a blatant disregard for the health and safety of the patients who literally entrusted their lives to the company’s products,” FDA Commissioner David Kessler. Drug Watch

“In December 1993, Bard pleaded guilty in federal court to 391 criminal charges that involved accusations of selling defective heart catheters, hiding problems with the catheters from the FDA and conducting illegal experiments on humans. In a settlement with the FDA and DOJ, Bard agreed to pay $61 million. Half would be for a criminal fine and half for a civil liability settlement. Six Bard executives were also prosecuted in separate trials. Three were acquitted and three others were each sentenced to 18 months in prison for their roles in the catheter episode.” https://www.drugwatch.com/manufacturers/bard/

We at this website sincerely hope that this hernia mesh lawsuit update was helpful to victims as well as lawyers.