Status of Bard Hernia Mesh Lawsuits Discussed at October Conference

Published on October 8, 2019 by Sandy Liebhard

The federal court overseeing hernia mesh lawsuits involving various polypropylene implants marketed by C.R. Bard, Inc. and its Davol, Inc. subsidiary convened the litigation’s most recent Status Conference on October 1^st.

400 New Hernia Mesh Filings Per Month

Nearly 4,070 hernia mesh lawsuits were pending in the multidistrict litigation by the day of the conference. According to a Pretrial Order issued the same day, new claims are joining the proceeding at a rate of roughly 400 filings per month.

The process and timing for selecting bellwether trial candidates was among several matters addressed during the conference. It was ultimately decided that the Court will select three hernia mesh lawsuits from the previously designated Bellwether Trial Pool on February 15, 2020. The parties will simultaneously submit briefs on their preferred bellwether case selections by January 15^th, with each sides’ responses due by January 29^th.

The parties must also submit a Case Management Order with a schedule finalizing the bellwether process that incorporates, among other things, the deadlines and procedures set forth in the October 1^st Pretrial Order.

What the Bard Hernia Mesh Litigation is About

All of the hernia mesh lawsuits pending in the Southern District of Ohio were filed on behalf of plaintiffs  who suffered 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.

Polypropylene is a type of plastic frequently found in medical devices, including hernia patches and transvaginal mesh. However, plaintiffs claim that the specific material used by Bard and Davol 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 polypropylene hernia mesh implants were safe and effective for their intended use, and failed to adequately warn doctors and patients about their possible risks.