Hernia Mesh Lawsuit Alleges C. R. Bard Ventralight ST Device Is Unreasonably Dangerous, Incompatible with Human Tissue

Published on September 22, 2017 by Sandy Liebhard

A North Carolina man has filed a hernia mesh lawsuit against C.R. Bard that alleges its Ventralight ST hernia patch is unreasonably dangerous and incompatible with human tissue.

Ventralight ST mesh is manufactured by Bard’s Davol, Inc. subsidiary, and is indicated for the laparoscopic repair of various types of hernias. The device is constructed of a  polypropylene mesh that has been coated on one side by Davol’s Sepra technology.

According to Davol, Sepra is a “hydrogel barrier” that is supposed to minimize tissue attachment to the mesh and provide internal protection during the healing process. The hydrogel barrier initially swells upon implantation and is resorbed within about 30 days following the patient’s surgery.

Ventralight ST Hernia Mesh Allegations

According to a hernia mesh lawsuit filed in the U.S. District Court, District of New Jersey on September 14th, Julio Nunez was implanted with Ventralight ST in August 2014 to repair a ventral hernia. Soon after, he began experiencing severe abdominal pain, nausea, and fatigue.

Less than a month after undergoing hernia repair, Nunez endured a second surgery to drain an abdominal wall abscess and to have the Ventralight hernia mesh removed. He also had to undergo placement of a wound VAC. Nunez claims he continues to experience chronic pain due to Ventralight ST mesh.

“The scientific evidence Defendant knew or should have known of demonstrates that the mesh is incompatible with human tissue and often causes a negative immune response in patients implanted with the Product, including Plaintiff,” the lawsuit states.

Nunez accuses Bard and Davol of failing to properly test Ventralight ST and evaluate it risks and benefits. The complaint further asserts that “feasible and suitable alternatives” to Ventralight exist “that do not present the same frequency or severity of risks.”

“As a result of having the Product implanted, the Plaintiff has experienced significant mental and physical pain and suffering and mental anguish, has sustained permanent injury, has undergone medical treatment and will likely undergo further medical treatment and procedures, has suffered financial or economic loss, and/or lost income, and other damages,” the lawsuit charges.

Hernia Mesh Litigation

Nunez’s lawsuits is just one of a growing number of product liability claims that have been filed against hernia mesh manufacturers.

Ethicon, Inc., which withdrew its Physiomesh Flexible Composite Mesh product from the market in May 2016, has been named a defendant in more than 100 hernia mesh lawsuits that are currently pending in a multidistrict litigation now underway in the U.S. District Court, Northern District of Georgia

Just over two dozen Atrium C-Qur hernia mesh lawsuits have been filed in a second federal multidistrict litigation now underway in the U.S. District Court, District of New Hampshire.

Get the latest news and litigation updates about this case by following us on Facebook. Click the "Like" button below.


Follow Us

RXInjuryHelp.com on Google+  RXInjuryHelp.com on Facebook  RXInjuryHelp.com on LinkedIn  RXInjuryHelp.com on Twitter  RXInjuryHelp.com on YouTube  RXInjuryHelp.com on Pinterest

Skip to content