Many hernia mesh victims are seeking pertinent information about hernia mesh PerFix Plug lawsuits. Perflex Plug is a type of hernia mesh manufactured by Bard in conjunction with their subsidiary Davol. In December 2017, BD (Becton, Dickinson and Company) acquired Bard for 24 Billion. Perfix Plug hernia mesh is a Monofilament Knitted Polypropylene mesh. Bard mesh perfix plug is primary used for hernia repair. This mesh has become infamous for severe complications . Many Perfix Plug mesh lawsuits have been filed against Bard. There is currently a multidistrict litigation (consolidated proceeding) for all Bard hernia mesh made of Polyproplene in Federal Court for the Southern District of Ohio.
Bard PerFix Light Plug recall
Another Perfix plug, the Bard PerFix Light Plug was recalled in an FDA Class 2 device recall “The Bard PerFix Light Plug is indicated for reinforcement if soft tissue, where weakness exists, in procedures involving soft tissue repair, such as groin hernia defects” Class 2 Device Recall Bard PerFix Light Plug
PerFix Plug Lawsuit | bard mesh perfix plug
Many victims are wondering if there will be a global Perflix Plug lawsuit settlement 2018 or if any Perflix Plug lawsuits will be settled in 2018. Some aggrieved surgical mesh victims are trying to determine if the is an average settlement amount for hernia mesh lawsuits. There are no clear answer to these questions. Top hernia mesh attorneys are litigating these causes of action against Bard/ Davol seeking justice and compensation for victims.
Where will my Perfix Plug mesh lawsuit be filed?
There are three likely destinations for Perfix mesh lawsuits 2018:
- The hernia mesh lawsuit will be filed in Federal Court in New Jersey where Bard is now located, Federal Court in Rhode Island where Davol is headquartered or a Federal Court where the victim resides. (The Perfix Plug mesh lawsuit could be filed in another Federal Court, possibly) These Federal surgical mesh lawsuits will either remain in the Federal Court where the mesh lawsuit was filed or possibly be consolidated into a potential Bard/ Davol Multidistrict litigation in a yet to be determined federal Court. Bard / Davol is requesting that any potential Multidistrict litigation occur in New York or New Jersey federal Courts. The victim’s surgical mesh lawyers are advocating that any potential Multidistrict litigation be located in the Southern District of Ohio. The Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation will soon make the decision on whether there will be Multidistrict litigation and which Federal Court will handle the litigation.
- The Perfix Plug cases could be filed in State Courts in Rhode Island. Rhode Island has an extended, long lasting statute of limitations for certain victims of Bard / Davol mesh such as the Perfix Plug. This author makes the case that Rhode Island is the best place to file a Perfix Plug lawsuit.
Matthew Ochoa recently filed a lawsuit complaint against Defendants C.R. BARD, INC. and BARD DAVOL, INC. This lawsuit alleges in pertinent part that:
- “the Bard Defendants manufactured, promoted, distributed and sold for profit a product entitled BARD Perfix Plug Large-6/CTN Catalogue Number 0112970 GTIN 1080174106874 (“Bard Perfix Mesh”). Defendant promoted, distributed, and sold the Bard Perfix Mesh, as a product to repair hernia surgeries in the population. Defendant BARD describes the product as follows, “The Bard PerFix Plug is ideal for use in a tension-free preperitoneal repair technique. Since its introduction in 1993, it has been used in more than four million implants worldwide and has kept pace with new surgical techniques.” PLAINTIFF’S ORIGINAL COMPLAINT & JURY DEMAND, Paragraph #26, UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS HOUSTON DIVISION, MATTHEW OCHOA, Plaintiff,V. C.R. BARD, INC., BARD DAVOL, INC., JOHNSON & JOHNSON, ETHICON, INC., ETHICON US, LLC, AND ETHICON ENDO-SURGERY, INC., Defendants.
- “At all times relevant hereto, the Defendant knew of the defective nature of its product and its labeling as herein set forth, yet continued to design, manufacture, market, distribute and sell its product to maximize sales and profits at the expense of the general public’s health and safety in conscious disregard for the foreseeable harm caused by this product. Defendant’s conduct exhibited such an entire want of care as to establish that its actions were a result of fraud, ill will, recklessness, gross negligence or willful and intentional disregard to the Plaintiff’s individual rights, health and well-being and hence punitive damages are appropriate.” Id.
What are the alleged defects to the Perfix Plug alleged in the Ochoa lawsuit:
“a. The material is not inert and therefore reacts to human tissues and/or other naturally
occurring human bodily contents adversely affecting patient health.
b. The mesh material harbors infections that adversely affect human tissues and
c. The mesh products migrate from the location of their implantation, adversely
affecting tissues and patient health.
d. If polypropylene, the mesh material abrades tissues adversely affecting patient
e. The pelvic mesh products regularly fail to perform the purpose of their implantation
such that the patient requires removal of the device and repeated treatment and
f. Due to their various defects, the pelvic mesh products regularly cause significant
injury to patients such that the mesh products must be removed, resulting in
g. The mesh products become embedded in human tissue over time such that if it
needs to be removed due to its various defects, the removal causes damage to the
organs and tissues, adversely affecting patient health.
h. The mesh products are defective in shape, composition, weight, physical, chemical
and mechanical properties and are inappropriately engineered.
i. The mesh products erode into other pelvic organs, tissue, muscle, nerves, and bone
adversely affecting tissues and patient health.
j. The Defendants designed and defected an unreasonable dangerous hernia mesh
k. Failed to adequately research the mesh.
l. The Defendants knew or should have known about the potential risk of infections,
allergic reactions, bowel damage and other internal injuries but withheld his
information from patients and doctors.
m. Defendants failed to properly investigate reports of problems after the hernia mesh
n. Defendants failed to warn about the risk of injury.
o. Defendants failed to promptly issue a recall after the problems were discovered.” Id.
Adverse event report:
If you are in need of legal representation contact us for a free review of your potential Perfix Plug claim. These cases will not be litigated as class actions. We are strongly opposed to class actions because individual surgical mesh victims do not have control over their case and whether they should settle. If the hernia mesh claim is accepted by a top hernia mesh law firm, the claim will be an individual lawsuit seeking justice and compensation.
|DVL0112750||MESH, PERFIX PLUG, SMALL, 1″X1.35″||2/CS|
|DVL0112750H||MESH, PERFIX PLUG, SMALL, 1″X1.35″||1 EA|
|DVL0112760CS||MESH PLUG MED -ORDR QTY 2||2/CS|
|DVL0112760H||MESH PLUG MED||1 EA|
|DVL0112950||MESH, PERFIX PLUG, SMALL, 1″X1.35″||6/CS|
|DVL0112960||MESH, PERFIX PLUG, MEDIUM, 1.3″X1.55″||6/CS|
|DVL0112970||MESH, PERFIX PLUG, LARGE, 1.6″X1.9″||6/CS|
|DVL0112980||MESH, PERFIX PLUG, XLG, 1.6″X2″||6/CS|
|DVL117080||PLUG, PERFIX, XLG 1.5X2IN||1/CS|