A woman from Rhode Island has filed a new hernia mesh lawsuit against C.R. Bard, Inc. over injuries she allegedly sustained from a defectively designed Ventralight ST Mesh patch.
According to a complaint filed in the U.S. District Court, District of Rhode Island, on August 14th, Victoria Alfo was implanted with a 6″ by 8″ Ventralight ST patch during umbilical hernia repair on August 5, 2015. (Case 1:18-cv-00445)
Less than two months later – on September 30, 2015 – she was forced to undergo hernia mesh revision surgery following failure of the implant. During that procedure, her surgeon noted “exposed mesh under the skin and purulent material.”
Among other things, the lawsuit alleges that the Ventralight patch’s ST coating creates an impermeable barrier when affixed to body tissue. This purportedly results in an ideal breeding ground for bacteria, which in turn, can cause infection or abscess formation and other complications.
The complaint further charges that the polypropylene used to manufacture Ventralight mesh was “substandard, adulterated and non-medical grade, and was unreasonably subject to oxidative degradation within the body, further exacerbating the adverse reactions to the product once the ST coating degraded.”
Together, these alleged defects create an unreasonable risk of severe adverse reactions to the mesh or mesh components including:
C.R. Bard and its Davol subsidiary currently face around 120 federal lawsuits involving the Ventralight patch and other polypropylene hernia mesh products, all of which have been centralized before a single judge in the U.S. District Court, Southern District of Ohio. All of these actions allege that Bard’s polypropylene hernia mesh implants are defective and can lead to serious complications, including adhesions, damage to organs, inflammatory and allergic responses, foreign body rejection, migration of the mesh, and infections.
The cases were consolidated late last month, after the U.S. Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation determined that centralization would “eliminate duplicative discovery; prevent inconsistent pretrial rulings; and conserve the resources of the parties, their counsel, and the judiciary.”