Big picture – Litigation – Perfix plug

Hernia Discussion Forums Hernia Discussion Big picture – Litigation – Perfix plug

Viewing 34 reply threads
  • Author
    • #31777
      Good intentions

      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.

      Hernia Mesh Lawsuit Against C.R. Bard

    • #32401
      Good intentions

      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.

      Hernia Mesh Lawsuit Against C.R. Bard

      Excerpt –

      “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.”

    • #33287
      Good intentions

      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.” “

    • #33299

      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.

    • #33301
      William Bryant

      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.

    • #33336
      Good intentions

      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.

    • #33337
      Good intentions

      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.”

    • #33365
      Good intentions

      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.

    • #33431
      Good intentions

      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.

      Surgimesh Hernia Mesh Lawsuits

    • #33432
      Good intentions

      Atrium C-Qur, the fish-oil coated mesh, still seems to be working its way through. Here is an update from September 26, 2022. Not so long ago.

      Update on the Atrium C-Qur Hernia Mesh Lawsuits

    • #33433
      Good intentions

      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.

      Atrium ProLite and ProLoop Hernia Mesh Lawsuits

      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.”

    • #33434
      Good intentions

      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.

      Mass Torts to Watch in 2023

      “Hernia Mesh
      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.

      … “

    • #33518
      Good intentions

      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.”

    • #33629
      Good intentions

      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.

      What’s Happening in the Hernia Mesh Litigation?

    • #33649
      Good intentions

      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.”

    • #33652
      William Bryant

      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?

    • #33653
      Good intentions

      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?

      Kugel Hernia

      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.”

    • #33884
      Good intentions

      I just posted a video from SAGES 2021 that had at least two plug removal videos contained within it. The next “bellwether” trial for hernia mesh is apparently scheduled to begin in May. It is about the Perfix plug. The process takes so long. After this trial another trial is scheduled for later in the year.

      Still fascinated by the huge dilemma the mesh producers have, considering the scale of the problem. The products are still on the market, maybe because removing them from the market would be admitting that they are flawed. Plugs have been around for decades. There are thousands of potential cases waiting in the future. Johnson and Johnson tried to encapsulate their liability for asbestos/talc by spinning off that part of the business so it could go bankrupt but the courts would not allow it. How do they get out of this mess? When do they start removing bad products and trying to develop products that are actually better?

      Davol was part of Bard, which is now part of Becton Dickinson, known as BD now in the medical field.

      “February 9, 2023 Update
      In an Order issued earlier this week, the Bard MDL judge set forth a detailed schedule for the third hernia mesh bellwether test trial (Stinson v. C.R. Bard et al.). Pretrial conferences will be held on May 2nd and 3rd and the trial itself will begin on May 15, 2023. Final witness lists are due from both sides this month. The judge also requires lawyers for all parties to submit proposed dates for a 4th bellwether trial later in the year.”

    • #33897

      Great posts on this thread.

      Yup, agree that plug meshes should be off the market and the main reason they aren’t being pulled is because it would look like they are admitting it is a poor design. Also, plug mesh still seems to be among the best sellers, if you can believe it.

      Interestingly, BD is switching to an all Phasix (synthetic absorbable) panel of meshes. And get this: they are making the Perfix plug under the Phasix umbrella too. Unbelievable. They could have easily done away with the plug in their newer generation of products.

    • #34369
      Good intentions

      Here are a couple of new updates on the Bard mesh multi-district litigation case. Interesting that they are still describing the latest case as proposing that the polypropylene itself is the cause of the problems. Medtronic just introduced a new Progrip mesh made from polypropylene.

      18,000 cases in the class action. The thought is that Bard will settle this single case, and set the standard for future payouts. It kind of looks like a giant supertanker heading for the rocks. Maybe it will finally drive the mesh producers to invest in research to actually understnad cause and effect nad produce a better product. The profits are too easy with polypropylene and the 510(k) process.

      “March 20, 2023 Update
      As predicted, a settlement appears imminent in Stinson v. C.R. Bard, which was slated to serve as the third test case in the C.R. Bard hernia mesh MDL on May 15, 2023. The trial has been delayed without objection from the plaintiff which is a strong sign of settlement. has been delayed.

      Despite the denial of a summary judgment motion by the defense, allowing the case to move forward, Bard’s defense team requested a postponement, which was granted by the MDL judge two days later. It is unclear when a new trial date will be set. This delay may indicate a possible settlement in the works. We will keep you updated in this space as we learn more.

      March 15, 2023 Update
      The Stinson trial is locked the loaded for May 15th. Plaintiff’s lawyers fought off a motion to dismiss and C.R. Bard and Davol will face most of the claims in a lawsuit filed by a Maine man who alleged that a flawed hernia mesh product caused him pain and other complications.

      The suit is scheduled to be the third – we call it the fourth – bellwether trial in the multidistrict litigation, which has over 18,000 cases pending against the two companies.

      Plaintiff alleges that the polypropylene used in the mesh isn’t suitable for permanent implantation and leads to complications. The judge not only allowed the plaintiff to take his design defect claim to go forward, but he is also allowing the plaintiff to claim punitive damages. The court also cleared negligence and warranty claims for trial but granted judgment for the companies on other claims.”

      Hernia Mesh Lawsuit Against C.R. Bard

    • #34436
      Good intentions

      A recent example of the power of the lawsuit. Johnson & Johnson, owners of Ethicon, have stopped selling a product that was making them money because the lawsuits were so strong that it would be too expensive to keep the product. The story of asbestos in talc is long and complex, but it has been in the news for decades.

      They’ve stopped selling the product and they’re trying to minimize their losses with a settlement agreement.

      “The lawsuits filed against J&J had alleged its talcum powder caused users to develop ovarian cancer, through use for feminine hygiene, or mesothelioma, a cancer that strikes the lungs and other organs.

      The claims contributed to drop in J&J’s sales of baby powder, prompting the company to stop selling its talc-based products in 2020. Last year, J&J announced plans to cease sales of the product worldwide.”

    • #34437
      Good intentions

      Here is an interesting recent article about the topic.,_asbestos,_and_epidemiology__corporate.2.aspx

      Talc, Asbestos, and Epidemiology: Corporate Influence and Scientific Incognizance

      Tran, Triet H.a; Steffen, Joan E.a; Clancy, Kate M.a,b; Bird, Tessa,c; Egilman, David S.a,d

      Epidemiology 30(6):p 783-788, November 2019. | DOI: 10.1097/EDE.0000000000001091

      Here is the first paragraph –

      “In the early 1970s, findings of asbestos in talc, and findings of talc colocated in ovarian tumor tissue, led to public controversy.1–5 For over 40 years, talc mining and manufacturing companies attempted to obfuscate the importance of these findings by keeping exposure information behind a corporate veil and otherwise influencing medical information concerning the health effects and asbestos content of talc used in cosmetics.6–9 Control over information is a recognized method by which industries maintain sales and avoid regulation and tort liability.10–16 There are many examples when companies have concealed the presence of hazardous components in products; failed to publish study results indicating that their products presented health risks; and manipulated studies to publish false results that encouraged product use or hid side effects.10–16 For example, in 1971, Henderson et al. found talc in an ovarian cancer tissue sample and raised concerns about the relation between talc use and ovarian cancer.17 Johnson & Johnson hired Arthur Langer, a mineralogist at Mount Sinai, to reexamine the tissue.9,17 Langer confirmed the presence of talc, and also found asbestos in ovarian cancer tissue. Evidence shows that Johnson & Johnson successfully dissuaded him from publishing these findings.9”

    • #34438
      Good intentions

      One more. Corporations really don’t care about anything except shareholder value. Their ethos is that anything that makes a profit is good and that if harm is done they will just pay the lawsuit costs.

      “Facing thousands of lawsuits alleging that its talc caused cancer, J&J insists on the safety and purity of its iconic product. But internal documents examined by Reuters show that the company’s powder was sometimes tainted with carcinogenic asbestos and that J&J kept that information from regulators and the public.”

    • #34984
      Good intentions

      Delay, delay, delay seems to be the current state of the Bard litigation. New motions made by lawyers who know that they will be rejected. Expectations of a settlement were proposed as the reason for the delay to May, now the trial has been delayed to October of 2023. This major healthcare problem has become a purely financial and legal problem. Also interesting that worker’s compensation is handled by a government agency formed to protect workers, but the agency formed to protect the general public is doing nothing.

      “May 13, 2023 Update
      Things have been slow in the hernia mesh litigation while we wait for the Stinson trial and hope for a settlement before that. Yesterday, a new motion was filed in Stinson that revolves around the admissibility of evidence related to Mr. Stinson’s workers’ compensation claim. Bard wants to admit that there was an award and the amount of the award received by Mr. Stinson from his workers’ compensation claim be excluded.

      The plaintiff’s counsel argues that the defendants should be barred from mentioning workers’ compensation during the trial under the collateral source rule. It is hard to imagine a scenario where the plaintiff loses this motion. The whole point of the rule is to referencing a collateral source would risk leading the jury to reduce Mr. Stinson’s damages award, assuming he had already received some compensation. Moreover, workers’ compensation claim holds no evidentiary value.

      May 1, 2023 Update
      The new trial date for Stinson v. C.R. Bard, the third MDL bellwether trial, is now reset for October 16, 2023. This trial date is the pressure point for settlement not only for this case but for the entire litigation.”

    • #35062
      Good intentions

      Another update. Somebody has to be doing the math about how many new cases are being produced every day. If nothing is changing in the hernia repair field, and nothing is expected to change in the legal field, then, of course, these lawsuits will continue even after a settlement. It’s very simple logic. Who will end up paying for these payouts?

      “May 15, 2023 Update
      As the hernia mesh class action MDL involving C.R. Bard continues to drag itself towards a conclusion, large numbers of new plaintiffs continue to join. Over the last month, 206 more cases were added to the MDL. That swells the total number of hernia mesh plaintiffs to 19,476. Since the start of the year, 1,000 new cases have been added to the Bard hernia mesh MDL.”

    • #35093
      Good intentions

      Another update. Of course, the web site is run by a law firm so the hopes expressed are focused on getting that payout. But a person still has to wonder about what happens after that. If Bard (BD) settles it will be only with the clients in the class action suit. The 200+ per month more people appearing each month will still be appearing, eventually, probably, combined to form another one. It looks like a never-ending pipeline. How will they get out of it? J&J has tried to separate various product lines under legal threat, apparently so that they can declare bankruptcy in those separated compnaies and stop the bleeding. But the courts did not allow it.

      None of these products have been removed from the market. There has to be a long-term strategy. What could it be?

      “May 19, 2023 Update
      There was a Case Management Conference in the MDL on Wednesday looking at the progress made in getting the third and fourth bellwether lawsuits (Stinson and Bryan). The next Case Management Conference is scheduled for June 13, 2023. The hope here is that keeping the pressure on Bard in these last two trials will lead to a long-awaited settlement before either of these hernia mesh lawsuits go to trial”

      From earlier in the law firm thread, below. The Perfix plug is still for sale by BD. Dr. Towfigh mentioned that plugs are the highest volume mesh repair product in the world. Maybe that’s the key. Global sales probably dwarf the lawsuit payouts.

      “Stinson, a plaintiffs’ pick for trial, involves the extra-large PerFix Plug device used to repair inguinal hernias. Mr. Stinson claims difficulty with urination, weight gain, an impaired sex life, and nerve entrapment.”

      • #35102

        “None of these products have been removed from the market. There has to be a long-term strategy. What could it be?”

        This is appalling…and that Bard is still using the design with new products, per Dr. Towfigh’s post, is just deplorable.

        It’s sad that regulatory oversight is so lax…and that legal recourse will take years and cost a small fortune, to wind its way through the system, all the while patients continue to suffer.

    • #35202
      Good intentions

      Another update from the Lawsuit Information Center web site. The number is huge and it’s just a single person. And the foundation of the case was built on the material used, so it could be used for suits involving all devices made using that material.

      It’s not polypropylene and it’s not an inguinal hernia repair device but still interesting that juries believe that the damage is real and that Bard bears responsibility.

      I pulled a few of the past reports together. PET is polyethylene terephthalate, called “polyester” in a typical knitted hernia repair mesh. Polypropylene and polyester are the two main materials used in the meshes.

      “May 25, 2023 Update
      The Rhode Island judge in Trevino took $250,000 off the verdict but left $4.55 million intact in post-trial motions. It is hard to understand the logic behind reducing the jury’s award by even a penny after all that plaintiff has been through based on the evidence offered at trial. But in the big picture of things, the judge’s ruling is a win because leaves the lion’s share of the award intact and affirmed the key rulings that Bard had opposed.

      August 29, 2022 Update

      We have a verdict from Rhode Island: $4.8 million. Paul Trevino’s lawsuit alleged that C.R. Bard’s Ventralex hernia patch eroded into his bowel because they chose the materials they used based on price instead of safety. The jury agreed, finding both that the design was defective and that Bard to failed to warn of the risk. I’ve been saying all along I have no idea why Bard let this case go to trial. But the settlement value of Bard hernia mesh cases just went up.

      August 26, 2022 Update
      We could have a Rhode Island state court verdict today in a Bard Ventralex patch case, Trevino v. Bard …. stay tuned.

      In Trevino, the plaintiff claims that the defendants knew or should have known that the PET ring, a component of the Ventralex Mesh, was prone to breaking or buckling, thereby increasing the risk of severe, permanent injuries. Despite these risks, the defendants intended for their product to be implanted for the purposes and in the manner that the plaintiff and her implanting physician used it.”

      Here is the link.

      Hernia Mesh Lawsuit Against C.R. Bard

    • #35888
      Good intentions

      Nothing substantial on the Updates. As I have noted in two other threads, Medtronic and BD have both introduced new polypropylene products to market. Progrip Polypropylene, and Bard 3d Max MID. I think that the damaged patients and the litigation are just calculated in to the price of the products. These are not companies that exist for the betterment of humanity’s health. They’re just business ventures.

      From the link in the post above –

      “June 12, 2023 Update
      Bard continues to struggle with product liability lawsuits. The latest is the Bard PowerPort device which provides a port for patients to receive medication without the need to start a fresh IV. Like the hermia mesh claims, Bard PowerPort lawsuits involve allegations that the device was poorly made.

      June 5, 2023 Update
      Bard no longer believes Stinton should go to trial. Why? Because it says the plaintiff’s injuries have escalated to the point where it is no longer a good bellwether trial. Bard is saying we want to avoid a significant verdict in Stinson because that will lead to greater settlement expectations.

      This is nonsense. The first two bellwether trials were not great cases for plaintiffs, so those cases could be said to be unrepresentative. This tactic coincides nicely with Bard’s strategy of prolonging the process, which aims to hold onto their capital as long as they can, with the hope that persistent delays will persuade plaintiffs to settle for smaller settlement payouts when this ordeal finally reaches a resolution. Should the judge agree to postpone the Stinson trial – and the bet here is that he will not – that will cause even greater delay to get the next case ready for trial.

      June 1, 2023 Update
      As many of you reading this know all too well, mass tort lawsuits can move slowly. Some plaintiffs try to make arguments to steer clear of a class action lawsuit to pursue an independent claim. In Vaughn, et al. v. Kentuckiana Surgical Specialists, P.S.C., et al., plainitff filed a hernia mesh lawsuit in the Western District of Kentucky to the Southern District of Ohio. She asked to stay out of the Bard MDL because the transfer would cause inconvenience to them and non-Bard healthcare defendants. But the MDL Panel determined that the case shares common factual questions with those already transferred to MDL No. 2846 because the focus of the case is the claim that Bard’s polypropylene hernia mesh products have defects, leading to complications, such as adhesions, organ damage, and infections, when implanted in patients.”

    • #37526
      Good intentions

      Here is an interesting story about how the big corporations try to avoid liability for faulty products. I’ve posted about it before. If this type of maneuver succeeds then corporations can just rake in the money from bad products until the lawsuits build up, then split the division off and declare bankruptcy. Johnson & Johnson owns Ethicon, one of the big hernia mesh product suppliers.

    • #37527
      William Bryant

      Thanks Good’s good you keep us up to date on the legal cases.

      Bankruptcy seems an easy way out and negates any need to defend their product/s. Which if as good as we are told, you’d think they’d be delighted to do.

    • #37857
      Good intentions

      The web site that I had been using to keep track of litigation seems to be slipping. I found another that seems to be up-to-date.

      Hernia Mesh Lawsuit Settlement Compensation Payouts

      August 16, 2023: The Bard MDL has been frustratingly quiet in August. The MDL did add 191 new cases last month, increasing the total case count for the 3rd largest MDL in the country to added to 20,126 lawsuits.

      August 10, 2023: The pivotal 3rd bellwether test trial is on track to begin on October 16, 2023 in the case of Stinson v. C.R. Bard, et al. (2:18-cv-01022). In preparation for that upcoming trial, the MDL Judge recently issued an Order setting last-minute discovery deadlines related to the plaintiff’s post-operative treatment last month. The order gives the parties until August 14, 2023, to complete supplemental fact depositions and until September 27 to finish additional expert depositions. The short time frame of these deadlines suggests that the judge is committed to going to trial in October without further delays.

    • #38601
      Good intentions

      Here is the latest on the Bard MDL. A case starts in about five weeks. It’s interesting that the Bryan v. C.R. Bard Inc. case is actually about transvaginal mesh. So the legal profession sees the mesh design and/or the material itself (polypropylene) as the source of the problems. As a materials person myself, I think that it’s probably more product design than material. But, broadly, the products as they exist today are not good enough. The medical device makers need to start considering the cost of damages versus the cost of research. It might be time to make a new investment in future products instead of coasting on what used to be easy 510(k) money.

      From the link in the post above –

      “September 1, 2023: After a very long wait, it looks like the next bellwether test trial in the Bard hernia mesh MDL is finally going to happen. In a new Case Management Order issued yesterday, the MDL Judge confirmed that trial in the case of Stinson v. Davol, Inc., et al. (18-cv-1022) will begin on October 16, 2023. A fourth bellwether trial will be scheduled for early 2024 in the case of Bryan v. C.R. Bard Inc., et al. (18-cv-1440).”

    • #38969
      Good intentions

      It has been pretty fascinating to follow the progress of the lawsuits focused on various hernia mesh products. Also kind of difficult since the various law firms that report on them generally don’t present information very well.

      One thing I’ve noticed is that they seem to be working from a starting assumption that all mesh products are inherently “good” and that they need to find a specific defect in material or manufacturing proce4ss to show a failure on the corporation’s part. Instead of just showing that the products available are generally deficient and inadequate and that the benefits are oversold, and that the corporations know this but are letting the harm continue. They should be taking the J&J talc/asbestos path, or the tobacco or oil company strategy and showing that the corporations are valuing profits over public damage.

      This summary page shows some of that. Apparently one of the cases tried to use a fire in a manufacturing plant as evidence of negligence. Instead of just showing that it’s a bad design that even the global “guidelines” recommend against.

      Anyway, it’s just one benefit of getting tangled up in this mess. A new form of entertainment.

      Apparently there is a new class action suit against Medtronic for their Covidien mesh. It slipped in over the last year, didn’t even notice it.

      Hernia Mesh Lawsuit


      September 23, 2023 – Coviden MDL Has Trial Dates… in 2025
      The federal judge overseeing Covidien hernia mesh lawsuits in federal courts nationwide has given approval to a proposal for preparing six bellwether cases and selecting two of them for trial in early 2025. While progress has been somewhat slow in this litigation and 2025 seems like light years away, getting a trial date gets the clock moving on pushing Coviden to make meaningful settlement offers for the over 600 plaintiffs in this litigation.

      While the facts are different, this litigation is tied in the Bard MDL psychologically. A big verdict in Stinson next month would not only help the Bard plaintiffs but the other hernia mesh class actions as well.

      October 28, 2022 Covidien Mesh Lawsuit Update
      At a recent status conference in the Covidien hernia mesh class action MDL, the parties advised Judge Patti Saris (D. Mass.) that 170 Covidien hernia mesh cases are currently pending in federal courts, 5,700 lawsuits pending against Covidien in Massachusetts state courts (Covidien’s home state). The central issue at the status conference was the proposed discovery plan submitted by Covidien. The plaintiffs’ committee is vehemently opposed to the proposal because it would give them under one year to complete corporate discovery.

    • #38970
      Good intentions

      Here’s a summary of the Covidien MDL. Parietex is a brand name used for many mesh products including the common flat mesh sold by Medtronic.

    • #38971
      Good intentions

      Here’s another interesting summary that gets in to the details of the premise being suggested for the problems. They distinguish between polyester and polypropylene. Some of it seems exaggerated but I guess that’s what lawyers do. Looks like they have their sights set on Progrip also.

      It’s like reading an exciting novel in serial form.

      Covidien Hernia Mesh Lawsuit

Viewing 34 reply threads
  • You must be logged in to reply to this topic.

New Report


Skip to toolbar