A Florida couple are among the most recent plaintiffs to file a hernia mesh lawsuit against C.R. Bard, Inc. for injuries and complications caused by an allegedly defective Ventralex Hernia Patch.
According to a complaint filed in the U.S District Court for the Middle District of Florida on April 23rd, 69-year-old David Israel received a Ventralex patch in combination with Bard’s CapSure Permanent Fixation System during hernia repair surgery. Prior to the procedure, Mr. Israel had enjoyed cycling, fishing and gardening as part of his active lifestyle. (Case No. 3:18-cv-548-J-34JRK)
Among other things, the lawsuit notes that Ventralex hernia mesh is constructed of a type of plastic called polypropylene, which Mr. Israel and his wife allege is not compatible with the human body. They further claim that the material is associated with “known adverse health consequences” when used in hernia surgery, including mesh erosion, infection, chronic pain, abscesses, inflammation, organ perforation, bleeding, nerve damage and recurrent hernias.
“Defendants’ mesh products have high failure, injury, and complication rates, fail to perform as intended, require additional operations, and specifically have caused injuries to Mr. Israel,” the complaint states.
These defects purportedly caused Mr. Israel to experience severe pain and abdominal deformity, forcing him to abandon the active lawsuit he once enjoyed. The lawsuit further alleges that his hernia mesh complications have caused Mr. Israel’s wife, Cynthia, to suffer “a loss of consortium and society with her husband.”
Court records indicate that C.R. Bard has been named a defendant in more than 50 product liability claims involving its polypropylene hernia mesh implants, including the Ventralex and Perfix devices.
Like Mr. Israel, plaintiffs pursuing these hernia mesh lawsuits assert that the company’s devices were defectively designed and caused them to experience debilitating complications and adverse reactions.
On April 10th, a group of Bard hernia mesh plaintiffs filed a motion with the U.S. Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation seeking centralization of the federal docket in a single U.S. District Court, preferably the Southern District of Ohio or the Western District of Missouri.
Their motion contends that consolidation of the mounting claims will improve judicial efficiency, reduce duplicative discovery, avoid conflicting pretrial rulings from different judges and serve the convenience of the witnesses, the parties and the courts.
Johnson & Johnson’s Ethicon, Inc. subsidiary and Atrium Medical Corp. are also facing a growing number of hernia mesh lawsuits over their polypropylene devices.
In February, for example, a group of New Jersey plaintiffs pursuing hernia mesh lawsuits over injuries and complications that were allegedly caused by Ethicon’ multi-layer, polypropylene implants filed a petition seeking the centralization of their casess before a single judge in Bergen County Superior Court.
Federal product liability claims involving Ethicon’s Physiomesh Composite Mesh patches have already been centralized in a multidistrict litigation now underway in the U.S. District Court, Northern District of Georgia.
More than two dozen hernia mesh lawsuits involving Atrium Medical’s C-Qur implants have also been consolidated before a single judge in the U.S. District Court, District of New Hampshire.