Bard Hernia Mesh Lawsuits Move Forward, With Finalized Bellwether Trial Schedule

Published on December 5, 2019 by Sandy Liebhard

The federal court overseeing thousands of hernia mesh lawsuits involving polypropylene implants marketed by C.R. Bard and its Davol subsidiary has issued a final schedule for the litigation’s first bellwether trials.

Bard Hernia Mesh Lawsuit Trials to Begin in March 2020

According to a Case Management Order issued on November 27^th in the U.S. District Court, Southern District of Ohio, the Court had previously established a Bellwether Trial Pool consisting of six hernia mesh lawsuits. Those cases are currently undergoing general fact discovery, which is to be completed by December 2^nd.

Following briefings and responses by the parties, the Court will select three hernia mesh lawsuits from the bellwether trial pool for the first three trials, which are scheduled to begin on March 11, 2020, July 13, 2020, and September 14, 2020.

Dispositive and Daubert motions for the three bellwether trial cases must be filed with the Court by February 3, 2020, with opposition papers due by February 21^st. Reply papers to the dispositive motions are then due by February 28^th. The Court will schedule Oral Arguments on dispositive and Daubert motions at its convenience.

What this Litigation is About?

There are currently 3,550 Bard hernia mesh lawsuits pending in the Southern District of Ohio.

All of the cases were filed on behalf of individuals who experienced hernia recurrence and other debilitating complications due to the allegedly defective nature of Bard and Davol’s polypropylene mesh implants, including: Composix E/X Mesh, Ventralex Hernia Mesh, Composix Mesh, Kugel Hernia Patch, CK Parastomal Patch, and the Modified Kugel Patch.

Plaintiffs claim, among other things, that the polypropylene used to manufacture Bard’s hernia mesh devices is biologically incompatible with human tissue and greatly increases the potential for painful and debilitating complications, hernia mesh failure, and the need for additional corrective surgeries. They further assert that the defendants failed to conduct adequate testing to ensure the products were safe and effective for their intended use, and failed to adequately warn doctors and patients about their possible risks.