Our hernia mesh attorneys are looking for new clients who have suffered serious side effects due to these defective products. More than 20,000 hernia-mesh lawsuits have already been filed.
Two cases involving hernia mesh devices have been brought to trial. Below are the updates from our hernia mesh attorneys (not counting Atrium ProLite which our mesh lawyers believe is a one-off).
August 30, 2022: The evidence from the Rhode Island hernia mesh trial revealed that C.R. Bard could have used a plastic type that its supplier thought was unfit for hernia mesh.
C.R. Bard used Pro-fax 5623, a plastic resin, in her hernia mesh products, despite being warned by the supplier that it was not allowed to be used.
Bard executives continued to use the resin, despite warnings. It was the strongest and cheapest material. This is a new major allegation.
We have revised our estimated hernia mesh settlement amounts due to a strong new angle, including jury appeal and a $4.8 million verdict.
August 29, 2022: Paul Tervino from Hawaii was awarded $4.8 Million by a Bristol County Superior Court Jury in Rhode Island. The jury found that Bard/Davol’s hernia mesh kits were defective, and Bard did not warn about it.
This huge verdict will be a looming threat to hernia mesh settlement negotiations. Today’s Bard hernia mesh settlement amounts will be higher than yesterday.
August 28, 2022: We wait to hear from Paul Trevino, and others in Rhode Island about the verdict. Let’s discuss the Coviden class action lawsuit. Judge Patti B. Saris hosted her first monthly status conference for attorneys in the Covidien mesh class action MDL. The Massachusett-based class-action has already attracted almost 100 mesh lawsuits in its two-month-old period.
In the coming weeks Judge Saris will be focusing on the appointment of plaintiffs’ leaders committee members. The next items on the agenda will be the creation of a joint discovery process and the selection of bellwether test cases. Bard is expected to settle quickly, which will create a domino effect in which smaller class actions offer reasonable settlement amounts.
August 24, 2022: Judge in the C.R. Bard Hernia Mesh MDL appoints a mediator to facilitate negotiations for a global settlement in all remaining cases.
This is significant because the new mediator for settlement was appointed pursuant to a jointly signed agreement between the parties. It’s a strong indicator that a global settlement amount could soon be finalized. Two more bellwether trials were also set by the class action judge for February (Stinson finally) and May next year. Both sides should feel more motivated to reach a settlement agreement by the end the year.
July 23, 2022: A growing number of hernia-mesh lawyers have filed lawsuits, which could signal a global settlement for hernia. Why? When a settlement is reached, many lawyers will close their doors to any new cases.
Another high volume of hernia mesh lawsuits were added to the C.R. in the last month. Bard hernia-mesh class action lawsuit in Ohio. A total of 216 new hernia-mesh lawsuits were transferred to the Bard MDL between June 15 and July 15. This brings the total Bard mesh lawsuits in this class action up to 17,195.
These filings are evidence that there may be merit to the rumors of a global hernia mesh settlement arrangement being in the works. No. If you’re optimistic, you have another reason to believe that settlements will soon be made available to victims.
July 16, 2022 Below are the latest updates. We discuss how each side appealed Antonio Milanesi’s verdict. In the C.R. Bard Hernia Mesh MDL denied both sides’ motions to reverse the $225,000 verdict in the second bellwether trial in April.
No one was happy with the verdict. The defendants filed a motion to overturn the verdict, claiming that the plaintiffs failed to provide sufficient evidence of causation. Plaintiffs requested a new trial as they did not believe the jury had awarded sufficient damages.
But that will not change. The Bard class action judge rejected both motions in a pair of orders. The bellwether verdict is valid unless it’s overturned by appeal.July 7, 2022: The Bard mesh class action judge denied defendant’s request for a docket controlling order. We discussed this in our last update. This order would have placed pressure on plaintiffs, possibly including expert testimony, to present marshal evidence in support of their case. This request was viewed by plaintiff’s lawyers as an unreasonable one that would place undue burdens on both the plaintiffs and their attorneys.
This is a sign that Bard may soon offer reasonable settlement amounts in order to resolve the cases involving hernia mesh. Why? Plainitffs are not eligible for settlement compensation payments because they can’t prove that they have sustained injuries. This is fair, but there are better ways to verify victims’ injuries. Bard and hernia mesh lawsuit settlement talks are still in limbo. Bard has already settled a number of Rhode Island hernia mesh lawsuits. This is not logical.
July 1, 2022: C.R. Bard is seeking a docket order to control the ongoing hernia-mesh MDL. New hernia-mesh lawsuits against Bard are continuing to be filed across the country and transferred into MDL. Ten more Bard hernia-mesh lawsuits have been transferred to the MDL class action in the last week. The District of Rhode Island received four mesh lawsuits, while six were filed in the District of Minnesota.
June 14, 2022: C.R., the defendants in the largest hernia mesh MDLs. Bard and Davol are asking the MDL judge for a “docket Control Order” to reduce the number mesh lawsuits that enter the MDL. C.R. The C.R.
Bard asserts that there has been a significant influx in new cases in recent months that involves “weaker claims” than the claims filed in earlier phases. Bard claims that docket control orders are necessary to limit the number of meritless claims. However, the plaintiffs will respond by stating that the order would limit the rights of potential plaintiffs.
To avoid dismissal, the docket control orders would require all plaintiffs “proof of medical diagnosis” or “proof that compensable injury” in order to be entered. The proof would consist of an affidavit signed by a qualified surgeon attesting to the plaintiff’s injury and linking it to the Bard mesh. In all cases, the docket order would require that plaintiff’s counsel certify that certain screening criteria were met.
June 1, 2022: Bard’s postverdict JMOL motion was opposed by the lawyers for Plaintiff Antonio Milanesi. Milanesi argues that the JMOL simply reiterates the same arguments that Bard rejected at the summary judgement stage and again in Bard’s pre-verdict JMOL. In response, Milanesi also claims that Milanesi proved that VentraLex’s defective VentraLex mesh was defective. The response specifically notes that the defects in the mesh product were proved by “competent expert witness” as required by Florida law.May 24, 2022: Neither party was completely satisfied with the verdict of $250,000 in the second bellwether trial at the C.R. Bard hernia mesh MDL. C.R. and Bard filed motions challenging the verdict shortly after it was rendered. Bard and the plaintiffs both filed motions to contest the verdict. C.R. C.R.
Bard’s motion states that judgment is warranted as the plaintiffs failed under Florida law to prove either design defect or causation. Plaintiffs filed a motion to reopen the trial on damages (FRCP 59), arguing that the Court did not properly instruct the jury that it was up to the defense to prove their mitigation of damages argument. This error allegedly affected the damages calculations of the jury, according to plaintiffs. Tomorrow is the deadline for both parties to respond.
May 23, 20,22: The slow winding down of the Ethicon hernia-mesh litigation continues following the recent global settlement.
The C.R. As of last week, the C.R. Bard MDL has 16,803 cases pending or active. It is frustrating to note that almost nothing has happened in the month since the $250,000 verdict in 2nd bellwether case.
As of May 16, there were 3,267 cases pending in the Atrium Mesh MDL in New Hampshire. However, the MDL has been quiet or inactive.
May 2, 2022: You may have been annoyed at the lack of updates from the trial. We haven’t had any updates since the trial.
A global settlement has been reached in Ethicon Physiomesh’s hernia mesh lawsuit at the MDL. The MDL class action includes 3,617 plaintiffs. It is also much smaller than the Bard class actions which have nearly 17,000 plaintiffs.
C.R. is pleased to announce this important development. This is a significant development for anyone who has brought C.R. against bard hernia mesh or any lawsuit against any mesh defendant. It increases settlement inertia and helps to set settlement amounts.
What is the date for the next trial of hernia mesh in the MDL class-action? Since Milanesi, our lawyers have been receiving this question via chat and text. No trial date has been set. Our attorneys expect that if there is no global Bard settlement, the next trial date will be in the fall.
April 15, 2022 #2: Mr. Milanesi receives a $250,000 verdict on his defective design case; $5,000 to his spouse for her loss of consortium case. We are happy to have won. This is the compromise verdict after the jury was split.
April 13, 2022: Dr. Kevin Gillian called the defendants and they decided to rest their case. Bard blames Dr. Gillian for the choice of large Ventralex. This is something doctors should keep in mind, as should any sales reps who are competing against Bard. Bard has had a long relationship with Dr. Gillian, and has been paying him as a consultant for many years. In rebuttal, Dr. Jimmy Hays was also allowed to testify.
April 12, 2022: The trial is coming to an end. This week should see a verdict. Yesterday, the defendants called Donna Bea Tillman for FDA-related opinions and Stephen Badylak for resorption of ST hydrogel coating. It is unclear if the plaintiff’s lawyers can recall Dr. Jimmy Mays to be a rebuttal witness about whether Ventralex was “state-of-the art” when it first came on the marketplace. This dispute should be resolved quickly by the court. If allowed, Dr. Mays could testify after the defendants have closed their case.
April 8, 2022: Bard finished the videotape of Christopher Paolo’s deposition and called Kimberly Trautman (an expert on medical device regulations) to testify. Many people hoped to receive a verdict today. It will not happen.
April 7, 2022: The plaintiff resigned after Dr. Ciavalella’s testimony was completed. Bard’s first witness Maureen Reitman is a veteran of testifying against victims of hernia mesh. She also testifies that Bard’s Ventralex manufacturing process was correct. Bard initiated the videotape deposition for Christopher Paolo.
Another hernia-mesh news: A motion to create a new hernia lawsuit class action was rejected in the Atrium ProLoop or Prolite suits. This may be more of a delay to create a new class action than a rejection of the eventual necessity for consolidated action. Atrium ProLoop or Prolite lawsuits have been filed to this point.
April 6, 2022: Yesterday was a significant day in the bellwether hernia trial. The morning ended with Dr. Ciavarella’s testimony. The plaintiff’s lawyers then called Dr. Michael Caluda who performed the surgeries and found the infected hernia wire mesh. Plaintiff’s lawyers called David Calabrese, a Bard employee, and the plaintiff. Bard will argue in its closing statement that the plaintiff could have avoided his injuries by having a fourth surgery to treat his recurrent hernias. This is a case of arguing from weakness. This is a sign that Bard wants to limit the amount of the award. Bard is making a difficult argument by haring a man and claiming he is responsible for another surgery in order to receive full compensation for his suit.
April 5, 2022: Dr. Yesterday was the end of Beatrice’s testimony. Plaintiff’s lawyers also recorded the deposition of Dr. David Ciavarella, another expert witness.
April 1, 2022: Yesterday Dr. Gill (original surgeon), finished his testimony and Dr. Michael Beatrice, Ph.D. testified. Dr. Beatrice gave testimony about Bard/Davol. Dr. Beatrice testified that the defendant failed to follow up on complaints regarding the Ventralex device, controls, and testing of the product.
March 31, 2022: Wednesday, March 31st, saw the conclusion of Mr. Darois’ testimony, Dr. Karanbir Gil’s testimony, and the testimony of Plaintiff’s wife. Because Dr. Gill is the surgeon who used the Ventralex Hernia Patch for Plaintiff’s umbilical hernia repair, his testimony is especially important.
March 30, 20,22:Yesterday was an extended day with more testimony from Roger Darois.
March 29, 2022: Yesterday marked the sixth day of the trial. Roger Darois was called by the plaintiff’s lawyers as a hostile witness. Retired Bard vice president, Mr. Darios was famous for writing once as a Davol executive that Chevron Phillips suppliers “will likely not interest in a medical app due to product-liability issues.” It was a remarkable thing to say. Davol/Bard used in humans. He requested secrecy. In any conversation with these manufacturers .”
Yesterday, March 26, 2022: Two witnesses testified. Dr. Jimmy Hays testified that the Ventralight ST coating reabsorbs too quickly and that exposure to bare polypropylene can cause injuries similar to those suffered by the plaintiff. Through Dr. Krpata, Dr. Hays have presented evidence of plaintiff’s lawyers regarding specific and general causation. Plaintiffs also called Stephen Eldridge Senior Research and Development Manager at Davol/Bard. Eldridge’s testimony focuses on what Bard knew, and when it knew it.
March 25, 2022: The trial could move slowly. Amazingly, Dr. Krpata’s testimony was the main focus of yesterday’s trial. Today is the start of the trial.
March 24, 2022: Plaintiff’s lawyers played more from Daniel LaFever’s deposition videotape and called Dr. David Krpata, a Cleveland Clinic expert witness in hernia surgeries, as an expert witness. To help explain his expert opinions, Dr. Krpata (well-known for his expertise in hernia mesh surgery) showed the jury a Ventralex animation.
Dr. Krpata believes that the recurrent hernias of Mr. Milanesi are caused by the weakness of the abdominal wall due to the two surgeries. Dr. Krpata further opines that polypropylene mesh and implanted expanded polytetrafluoroethylene contract at different rates. Buckling can result. According to Dr. Krpata, and other experts, the problem is that Ventralex’s memory coil ring doesn’t have enough rigidity to prevent buckling. This can lead to complications.
March 23, 2022 Update: The opening statements of Hernia mesh attorneys on both sides were shorter than 90 minutes each. The plaintiff’s lawyers then called Daniel LaFever, former Davol President, by videotaped testimony.
March 22, 2022 Update: Monday’s jury selection was made in the next MDL class-action lawsuit that will go to trial. C.R. will be the next MDL class action lawsuit. Bard was selected in just three hours and was sworn into office by 1:40 p.m. Eight Ohio jurors will rule on this hernia mesh case using Florida law. Tomorrow morning will see the opening statements of the attorneys.
Hernia Mesh Lawsuit Settlements
You want to find out the average settlement amount for hernia mesh cases if you are a potential plaintiff. Our hernia-mesh lawyers will look at data and statistics to determine what the average payout for hernia Mesh cases might be.
This is a very useful exercise. This is a useful exercise. Keep in mind that our lawyers do not speculate based on prior cases about the ultimate settlement value or the expected average individual payout.
What is the average amount of a hernia mesh lawsuit’s payout? This will depend on the success of the bellwether trials in 2022. Yes, the only surgical mesh lawsuit we lost this year was against a company that made surgical mesh. There will be more.
Based on the individual case, prior settlements and verdicts in similar cases indicate that hernia mesh claims could be worth anywhere from $50,000 to $1 Million. A jury payout should range from $500,000 to $5 Million. This range was established by our lawyers before the $4.8million verdict in Trevino in Rhode Island’s state court in August 2022.
That is quite a wide range. Continue reading. Below, our lawyers dissect our thinking and add caveats.
Summary of Hernia Mesh Deficiencies
A hernia can be a common medical condition that needs to be treated surgically. Nearly 1 million hernia surgery procedures are performed annually in U.S. hospitals. This makes hernia repair one of the most popular types of modern medicine. Most hernia surgeries have been performed using a patch or mesh implant device over the past 20-30 years. They are most commonly used to treat:
- Incisional Hernia is weakness in the abdominal muscle
- Ventral Hernia is weakness in the abdominal wall muscles
- Femoral Hernia: Upper thigh or Outer groin
- Inner groin: Inguinal Hernia
- An umbilical Hernia is a bulge that forms at your belly button
- Hiatal Hernia – Your stomach bulges into your chest
Doctors perform hernia surgery by tucking the protruding organ, usually an intestine, back into its proper place. Then they surgically repair the muscle wall that holds it together.
A mesh, or patch, is a tiny screen or net that surgeons place around the muscle tissue. The surgical mesh is made of biological materials. This allows connective tissue, which acts as structural support, to strengthen and reinforce damaged muscle walls at the site. The patch or mesh is replaced by muscle tissue.
These devices can be implanted and must be made from inert materials. They must also be kept in place so that they do not move or protrude into nearby tissue.
Most of the earlier mesh products were non-permanent/absorbable. These mesh products were made from animal byproducts and were intended to gradually absorb by the body, then disappear after implantation. Although these absorbable devices were safe, they didn’t provide abdominal wall support.
A new generation of permanent hernia mesh devices was introduced by several manufacturers in the early 2000s. These devices were made from a special plastic and surrounded by an inert coating material. This was supposed to make them biocompatible within the body. Many of these permanent mesh/patch implant designs had serious design flaws. These design flaws caused chronic pain for many patients and had other devastating consequences, such as revision hernia mesh surgery.
The number of adverse event reports submitted by health care professionals to the U.S. Food and Drug Administration grew. The FDA eventually, and perhaps late, issued safety alerts and requested product recalls.
This type of hernia mesh has a fundamental problem: Its bio-compatibility within the human body. The permanent mesh devices are not inert after they have been implanted into the body. Instead, there were design and manufacturing problems that made them incompatible with the immune system.
Implantation of defective hernia mesh devices could trigger an immune system attack, causing inflammation and other complications. A second problem is the rapid degrading of their outer coating, which causes them to attach abnormally to internal organs and tissue.
Hernia Mesh Defects Causes Injuries
Defective hernia mesh products can lead to internal injuries or health problems. Defective hernia mesh products are responsible for the most common injuries:
- Internal infections and pain
- Bowel obstruction
- Mesh detachment, and migration
- Puncture adjacent tissue/organs
- Scar tissue formation results in adhesion to other tissues or organs.
These complications may require additional surgery to correct or repair.
Some patients who had hernia surgery experienced some of these complications as soon as the mesh was implanted. Some patients experienced symptoms that were not related to the defects in hernia mesh devices after hernia surgery.
The Defective Hernia Mesh Products
Three hernia-mesh product lines have been the focus of lawsuits and recalls. Below is a table listing the names of the companies that made defective hernia-mesh products.
Manufacturer Products Date Range
Our lawyers are also investigating LifeCell Strattice claims and Surgimesh claims, which we discuss below.
Product liability litigation surrounding Kugel hernia mesh device is heating up with the next trial set for March 22, 2022 (rescheduled following a COVID delay).
After U.S. District Judge Mary M. Rowland’s rejection of Atrium Medical Corporation’s summary judgment motion, which sought to dismiss the plaintiff’s C-Qur hernia-mesh lawsuit, we had a CQR trial date. However, that case settled. The judge dismissed the defective design claims of the plaintiff. She allowed the plaintiff’s claims of manufacturing defects and failure to warn to continue. That is ultimately the argument hernia mesh lawyers use: that doctors and patients were not warned of the danger.