The parties involved in thousands of hernia mesh lawsuits filed against C.R. Bard, Inc. and its Davol, Inc. subsidiary have proposed specific cases for the litigation’s bellwether trials.
More than 3,560 lawsuits involving Bard and Davol’s polypropylene hernia mesh implants are currently pending in a multidistrict litigation underway in the U.S. District Court, Southern District of Ohio. All of the cases were filed on behalf of patients who experienced hernia recurrence and other debilitating complications due to the allegedly defective nature the defendants’ hernia mesh products, including Composix E/X Mesh, Ventralex Hernia Mesh, Composix Mesh, Kugel Hernia Patch, CK Parastomal Patch, and the Modified Kugel Patch.
Plaintiffs claim, among other things, that the above-named devices were manufactured with polypropylene that’s biologically incompatible with human tissue. This alleged incompatibility greatly increases the potential for painful and debilitating complications, hernia mesh failure, and the need for additional corrective surgeries.
Plaintiffs further assert that Bard and Davol failed to conduct adequate testing to ensure their polypropylene mesh was safe and effective for its intended use or adequately warn doctors and patients about potential risks.
The federal litigation is scheduled to convene three bellwether trials on May 11, 2020, July 13, 2020, and September 14, 2020. Verdicts in these cases could provide insight into how other juries might decide similar Bard Hernia mesh lawsuits, and possibly even lead to a settlement of all or most pending cases.
According to a brief submitted by Bard on January 13th, the parties have agreed on two possible lawsuits involving Ventralight ST mesh for the May 11th trial, as well as two others involving Ventralex mesh for the second. Both products are used to treat abdominal hernias.
For the September trial date, the parties have proposed cases involving different hernia mesh products, 3DMax and PerFix Plug, both of which are used in abdominal hernia repairs.
“As demonstrated by the selections below, Bard prioritized the cases in which the device at issue represents a significant part of the MDL inventory as a whole (particularly if one included similar devices with the same technology) over the cases in which the device at issue was previously (or will be) the subject of a trial elsewhere by the time the first trial in this MDL begins,” the brief states. “This approach to the order of trials seeks to maximize the opportunity to use this process to determine the value, if any, of the cases in this MDL.”