C.R. Bard, Inc. has been hit with another hernia mesh lawsuit, this time involving its Ventrio and Ventralex polypropylene mesh implants.
According to a complaint filed on August 24th in New Jersey federal court, Richard Potter received a Ventrio hernia patch in December 2009 to repair several abdominal wall hernias. (Case No. 2:18-cv-13169)
Potter underwent a second procedure in August 2017 because of pain in the area were the Ventrio patch was located and to repair a recurrent ventral incisional hernia. During that surgery, he was implanted with Bard’s Ventralex ST Hernia Patch.
Potter underwent a third surgery just last February to deal with yet another recurrent hernia. In addition to removing the hernia mesh, his surgeon also removed extensive intra-abdominal adhesions that had formed between the bowel and the mesh.
“He was taken to the operating room and unfortunately found to have a conglomeration of mesh and adhesions and bowel wall mangled together under the incision,” the doctor said, according to Potter’s complaint. “The procedure was very difficult to do. It was basically separating bowel from mesh without causing major injuries.”
Despite that surgery, Potter continues to suffer from complications allegedly related to the failure of Bard’s hernia mesh products and will likely require additional surgeries in the future.
The lawsuit charges that the Ventrio and Ventralex hernia patches Potter received were defectively designed and actually increase the likelihood of serious complications, including delayed wound healing, inflammation, foreign body response, rejection, and infection. The complaint further alleges that Bard was aware of the products’ defects, and rather than provide proper warnings to doctors and patients, the company continued to market the unreasonably dangerous devices.
C.R. Bard and its Davol subsidiary currently face around 120 federal lawsuits involving their 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 similarly allege that the defendants’ polypropylene hernia mesh implants, including the Ventralex and Ventrio products, 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 in July. 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.”