Big picture – Litigation – Perfix plug
07/03/2022 at 12:54 pm #31777
There are plenty of internet sites around that talk about litigation but I found this one, linked below, that seems very straightforward and reasonable in reporting progress.
One specific thing that is interesting in this latest update is the mention of the Perfix plug. Most of the hernia mesh litigation seeks to find a defect in the actual product itself, Like the use of fish oil on the Atrium mesh, under the assumption that the use of mesh itself is not the source of pain and suffering. But there is a case that mentions just the Bard Perfix plug as the cause.
IT is a well-written summary of what’s happening overall. The links in the document are interesting also and have updates up to July 1 2022.
Bard is now owned by Becton Dickinson.
09/09/2022 at 12:36 pm #32401
Here’s an update on the Perfix plug lawsuits. It seems like the one simplest mesh product that the majority of surgeons could agree should be curtailed in its usage. One or two surgeons with the guts to say something bad about a mesh product, beyond a simple tweet. Take some action, actually drive some change.
“September 9, 2022 Update
The next bellwether trial case is scheduled for trial on February 21, 2023, at 9:00 a.m. in Courtroom 311 at the federal courthouse in Columbus, Ohio. The case is Stinson v. C.R. Bard et al. We talk about this case in greater detail below. This puts real pressure on the upcoming settlement talks. Bard does not want to take another multi-million dollar verdict like it just did in Trevino.”
“May 26, 2022 Update
The big question we are getting from hernia mesh victims is when will the Stinton case, the third bellwether mesh lawsuit, go to trial? The trial date has not been set but our hernia mesh lawyers believe the trial is likely to go in October if a new trial is not granted in Milanesi.
Stinson, a plaintiffs’ pick for trial, involves the extra-large PerFix Plug device that is used to repair inguinal hernias. Mr. Stinson claims difficulty with urination, weight gain, an impaired sex life, and nerve entrapment.”
12/25/2022 at 1:22 pm #33287
This big lawsuit against C. R. Bard (now owned by Becton Dickinson) gets more interesting, and bigger. The initial description seems flawed, typical of many of these types of suits, in that they are trying to show that there was a specific defect in a product instead of showing that the product design itself is defective. But, regardless, as the suit proceeds, the extend of the damage will become more apparent.
The downside is that, according to a friend from way back who works in venture capital now, new product development is being delayed, because the corporations are waiting to see where the litigation ends up.
Here’s the latest –
“December 16, 2022 Update
As hernia mesh settlement rumors mount, the C.R. Bard hernia mesh MDL continues to add new cases as we slowly inch closer to a pivotal 3rd bellwether trial in May 2023 (recently postponed from February).
The class action lawsuit added 273 new hernia mesh cases to the MDL over the past month, increasing the total pending Bard mesh lawsuits to 18,227. The Bard hernia mesh MDL grew by 23% in 2022, adding 3,380 cases.
It is still the second largest mass tort behind only the 3M earplugs MDL.”
Here’s the original court document for MDL-2846 –
“Introduction – MDL 2846
This Multidistrict Litigation (“MDL”) was created by Order of the United States Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation (“JPML”) on August 2, 2018. In its August 2, 2018 Order, the JPML found that the actions in this MDL “involve common questions of fact, and that centralization in the Southern District of Ohio will serve the convenience of the parties and witnesses and promote the just and efficient conduct of this litigation.” The JPML continued that, “[a]ll of the actions share common factual questions arising out of allegations that defects in defendants’ polypropylene hernia mesh products can lead to complications when implanted in patients, including adhesions, damage to organs, inflammatory and allergic responses, foreign body.” “
12/26/2022 at 10:12 pm #33299drtowfighKeymaster
Yes. This is all very interesting to watch. The hernia mesh companies are changing their strategies or holding off on new products developments as they are observing how this all plays out. My hope is that hernia product design and innovation will improve and not be hindered as a result of these litigations.
12/27/2022 at 12:00 am #33301William BryantParticipant
How can it be hindered Dr Tonight do you think? The car industry has cases against all the time it still innovates and improves. The diesel/emissions scandal for example.
It’s important that industry is held to account for wrong doing and surely this helps ensure people are kept safer and products more rigorously checked – which can only be good for patients, surgeons and manufacturers as all will be more confident in the safety and efficacy of the product.
01/02/2023 at 11:24 am #33336
If the litigation results are broad-based, for instance if damages are awarded based on the polypropylene material, then any polypropylene-based mesh will be at-risk for future litigation. If the litigation fails, then the flood-gates for new products can re-open.
In the meantime, sales continue using old products.
Mass tort is supposed to show that a product is defective and should be removed from the market. In this case though, the damages will probably just be used to set the price of future products.
What is supposed to happen, is the FDA is supposed to get involved and remove the product from market. But the FDA page about hernia mesh still has years old text implying that now recalled mesh products were the cause of hernia mesh problems. The FDA gets weaker and weaker as the years go by.
01/02/2023 at 11:26 am #33337
Meanwhile, more suits are being filed. 23 in the last 8 days.
“January 2, 2022 Update
Rhode Island state court – the venue for the big Trevino verdict – is continuing to pile up new hernia mesh lawsuits. Twenty-three new suits against Bard were filed in Rhode Island since Christmas.”
01/04/2023 at 11:33 am #33365
I just came across an older article about litigation in General Surgery News. One of the Top 5 articles of 2022.
Dr. Voeller is interviewed and argues both sides of the issue. He points out that the 510(k) process has allowed untested materials in to the market, for transvaginal mesh products. But he seems to forget the fact that the hernia repair products got there the same way. He also implies that the law firms involved were attracted by the potential money involved, like that’s a bad thing. He kind of ties a knot around himself, as he seems to do when he talks about the problems with mesh. He doesn’t seem to understand the purpose of litigation in a free market, especially when regulation enforcement is as lax as it is in the United States. If a corporation injures people with poor products, they have to pay damages. Without litigation in a poorly regulated environment corporations are free to damage as many people as profits will allow.
Worth reading, even if you’ve already read it. Published March 21, 2022.
01/10/2023 at 1:58 pm #33431
I realized that the page I had been linking here had articles about other manufacturers involved in other lawsuits.
Pretty fascinating how the wave is growing. I am just passing in fo along as it becomes available.
Here are a few new ones. Surgimesh. I provided a link about it in my other thread about Types of Mesh.
Surgimesh is part of a new polypropylene material lawsuit. This is from March 2022. They all seem to be calling out the polypropylene material. Still not calling out the mature of the mesh. The mechanics of the mesh in the body. They should focus on that too.
Typical mesh implanted, major problems, mesh removed.
01/10/2023 at 2:01 pm #33432
01/10/2023 at 2:08 pm #33433
Here is another Atrium product. The date at the top of the page seems wrong, there’s a 2022 update in the text but the last date is 2021.
Not fish-oil coated, just run-of-the-mill polypropylene knitted mesh.
Apparently a settlement was reached. I think that the products have been discontinued, I can’t find any internet Atrium pages. An internet search produces only what look like old out-dated pages about the products and law firm/lawsuit pages.
“Atrium Hernia Mesh Settlement 2022 Update
Atrium Medical Corp. will pay $66 million in settlement compensation to settle C-Qur hernia mesh lawsuits against it. The MDL has been stayed pending the finalization of that settlement.”
01/10/2023 at 2:13 pm #33434
Hernia repair mesh made the big time in the world of mass torts. Right up there with Roundup, Camp Lejeune, and talcum powder. Here is a review.
The hernia mesh lawsuits involve claims that mesh implants used in hernia repair surgeries were defective and resulted in complications and other injuries. The hernia mesh litigation involves 3 different MDLs, each involving different hernia mesh products made by different medical device companies. The 3 hernia mesh MDLs are:
Bard Hernia Mesh MDL (In re: Davol, Inc./C.R. Bard, Inc., Polypropylene Hernia Mesh Products Liability Lit. – MDL-2846). This is the largest of the 3 with around 12,000 cases.
Ethicon Hernia Mesh MDL: (In re: Ethicon Physiomesh Flexible Composite Hernia Mesh Products Liability Lit.– MDL-2782). This has 3,500 cases and is the oldest of the hernia mesh MDLs.
Atrium Hernia Mesh MDL: (In re: Atrium Medical Corp. C-Qur Mesh Products Liability Litigation – MDL-2753) the smallest and most recent of the hernia mesh MDLs.
The hernia mesh MDLs have been around for a while compared to other mass torts. More than any other mass tort, the hernia mesh litigation got sidetracked by the pandemic shutdowns in 2020. Progress in the litigation started moving forward again in 2021, but with some disappointing initial results.
01/20/2023 at 11:53 am #33518
Here’s another update on the Bard (now owned by Becton Dickinson) hernia repair mesh multi-district litigation (MDL). It’s hard to predict how the results might affect the field of hernia repair. If the lawyers focus on the use of low quality polypropylene and the fact that Bard did not disclose it to patients or surgeons then the solution for the mesh makers going forward is just more disclosure. Business goes on, no change to the rates of chronic pain.
On the other hand though, if the lawyers show that polypropylene itself is the problem, no matter the quality, then there might be some impetus to change. The polyester fiber users will gain market share.
But, even after the settlement, if it happens, the rates of chronic pain will not change. So these types of litigation could continue for decades. If there’s chronic pain from a hernia repair mesh the discovery process will probably show that the executives knew about it and pushed the product to market anyway.
Anyway, here is the latest update and excerpts from the last three months showing how people keep joining the class. Pretty interesting to see it happening in real-time. I also included the last simple explanation of what the lawyers are focusing on to show negligence that is causing harm. Once they prove that potential harm was known but not disclosed I think it opens the door for continued discovery and future litigation.
“January 18, 2023 Update
A total of 18,403 cases are now pending in the hernia mesh class action MDL against C.R. Bard. That is an increase of 176 cases over the last 30 days, the biggest percentage increase of any mass tort MDL during that period. This high volume of new cases in this MDL has continued for several months now as we get closer to the next bellwether trial in May.”
“December 18, 2022 Update
As hernia mesh settlement rumors continue to swirl, the C.R. Bard hernia mesh MDL continues to add new cases as we slowly inch closer to a pivotal 3rd bellwether trial in May 2023 (recently postponed from February).
The class action lawsuit added 273 new hernia mesh cases to the MDL over the past month, increasing the total pending Bard mesh lawsuits to 18,227. The Bard hernia mesh MDL grew by 23% in 2022, adding 3,380 cases. …”
“November 17, 2022 Update
Another 166 new hernia mesh injury cases were added to the C.R. Bard class action MDL over the last month. At the beginning of the year, there were just over 15,000 plaintiffs in the MDL, that number is now up to 17,954 and growing. The continued growth in the number of pending cases should help to keep the settlement pressure on Bard’s parent company, Beckton Dickson. If we get a solid verdict for the plaintiff in the upcoming bellwether trial in February we could potentially be talking about a global settlement deal before June.”
“September 5, 2022 Update
One of the issues that got flushed out during the Trevino trial is that C.R. Bard used a plastic resin in its mesh products even after the plastic supplier told Bard it was not safe for that use.
This was no great revelation. But the plaintiff’s lawyers developed this issue well during the trial.
C.R. Bard used a plastic made by LyondellBasell called Pro-fax 6523 in all its hernia mesh products because it was the cheapest available material that met specifications.
Bard did this although LyondellBasell deemed Pro-fax 6523 unfit for permanent implantation inside the body and specifically prohibited buyers from using it in hernia mesh products.
That C.R. Bard knowingly ignored this is a new revelation that could swing the momentum in the C.R. Bard class action lawsuit.”
01/28/2023 at 12:34 pm #33629
Here’s a new summary of the mesh litigation situation. It shows how they’ve simplified things down to where the issues can be presented to the general public. Simple explanations, some probably not quite right.
It’s hard to predict how this will all play out. Comparing the mesh MDL’s to a suit like the 3M earplug suit, you can imagine that 3M will fix the flaw in their ear plugs, pay the settlements, and everyone will move on. The damage has been remedied for the plaintiffs and the bad product is removed from the market.
These mesh suits seem more complex though. People who have learned about and followed the mesh problems probably know that there is no simple “fix” that will allow the repair industry to keep using mesh without injuring more people. The 10-15% injury rate seems well-supported over many studies. One possibility is that the defendants agree to pay for more research to understand the source of the damage to the patients. Since they probably already know some of the reasons (there has to be experts that have told them) it seems possible that new products could be developed, but they will have to go through actual product testing trials instead of the inexpensive 510(k) process. What will they do in the meantime though? Maybe surgeons will do more pure tissue repairs? Create a registry to identify the truly bad products and procedures so that they can save some of the overall business from litigation? Who knows. It will probably take years though.
01/30/2023 at 10:52 am #33649
This is interesting. When J&J created Ethicon it looked like a similar attempt to separate itself from hernia mesh liability. This decision will probably influence mesh litigation cases.
“(Bloomberg) — Johnson & Johnson can’t use bankruptcy to resolve more than 40,000 cancer lawsuits over its baby powder, a federal appeals court ruled.
The three-judge panel in Philadelphia sided with cancer victims, who argued that J&J wrongly put its specially created unit, LTL Management, under court protection to block juries around the country from hearing the lawsuits.”
01/30/2023 at 11:31 am #33652William BryantParticipant
Thanks Good Intentions, it’s so underhand.
I read on another (Facebook) forum/group that Johnson and Johnson have won every mesh case so far – I can’t see that being true? Does anyone know if it’s true?
01/30/2023 at 12:14 pm #33653
It looks like there was a settlement in the Ethicon Physiomesh case. Ethicon and Johnson & Johnson are essentially the same company.
The writer of this article brings up the fact that the cases will probably keep coming. The mesh makers have created a lifetime of employment for the law firms. They knew better but they did it anyway. Where is/was the FDA?
This from almost 9 months ago:
“May 2, 2022 Update: There is a global settlement in the Ethicon Physiomesh hernia repair lawsuits. There are no settlement numbers that have been released so will know know what your individual settlement amount is.
The big question is will there be more Ethicon hernia mesh lawsuits in the future? There will still be more henria mesh lawsuits involving Physiomesh because many victims have not yet had complications. There are still many people out there with a recalled mesh inside of them.”
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.