Table of contents
C.R. Bard is currently involved in the defense of over 18,000 lawsuits related to their hernia mesh products. These lawsuits allege that the mesh devices were defectively designed, leading to injuries and complications in thousands of patients who underwent hernia repair surgery. The majority of these lawsuits are now part of the Bard hernia mesh settlement, and Nguyen Injury Lawyer continues to receive new claims regularly.
Our attorneys are actively representing clients in these cases across all 50 states. Nguyen Injury Lawyer is still accepting new claims. This page offers the latest news and updates regarding the hernia mesh litigation, as well as information concerning the potential settlement value of these cases.
For a free consultation, please contact Nguyen Injury Lawyer at (713) 747-7777 or submit your information through our online contact form.
Hernia Mesh Lawsuit News and Updates
Before diving into the details of the various class action hernia mesh lawsuits against Bard, let’s begin with the most current news and updates in the hernia mesh litigation.
January 6, 2026 Update
As of January 2026, the Bard hernia mesh MDL includes 23,749 pending cases, with a total of 25,100 cases filed. While many cases have been resolved through settlement, a significant number remain active.
November 4, 2025 Update
The number of pending cases in the MDL is gradually decreasing. There are currently 23,932 cases pending, a reduction of approximately 40 since last month.
October 2, 2025 Update
The MDL now includes 24,004 pending claims. The majority of these plaintiffs are awaiting the distribution of settlement funds.
September 5, 2025 Update
MDL 2846 has reached 24,026 individual cases. Even after the settlement, Nguyen Injury Lawyer is still evaluating new claims.
September 1, 2025 Update
The court overseeing MDL-2846 has transitioned to the execution phase, establishing a Qualified Settlement Fund (QSF) to manage payouts according to the class-wide settlement framework.
Funds are now being deposited into a dedicated escrow account managed by Wells Fargo and administered by appointed special masters and lien administrators. This structure is essential for resolving Medicare/Medicaid liens and managing structured settlements, which will directly impact the speed and efficiency of payments to plaintiffs.
June 12, 2025 Update
The Bard Hernia Mesh multidistrict litigation (MDL 2846) experienced a slight decrease in active cases over the past month, with 24,074 pending as of June 1, a minor reduction from 24,078 on May 1.
This slight change reflects the natural progression in a post-settlement environment. While some cases are being dismissed, new claims continue to be filed, particularly from individuals with delayed complications or those who opted out of the initial settlement agreement. Although a major global settlement addressed a significant portion of the docket last year, claims are still being submitted.
This dynamic suggests that the litigation is in its later stages, but considerable work remains to resolve all pending lawsuits. The MDL remains open to accommodate unresolved cases, and the court is managing this litigation, which will likely see a continued influx of new claims.
May 29, 2025 Update
When will victims receive settlement money from the Bard hernia mesh settlement? While the exact timing is uncertain, it is reasonable to anticipate that some of the quicker settlements may occur in 2025, while more complex settlements will likely extend beyond 2025.
May 15, 2025 Update
A summary of the Bard hernia mesh settlement:
- Total Cases Resolved: Approximately 38,000 lawsuits
- Total Settlement Value: Estimated to exceed $1 billion
- Defendant: Becton, Dickinson and Company, parent company of C.R. Bard
- Settlement Administration: Overseen by special masters appointed by both federal and state courts
- Payment Timeline: Disbursements to begin in 2025 and are scheduled over several years
Compensation Tiers:
| Settlement Option | Eligibility Criteria | Estimated Payout |
|---|---|---|
| Quick-Pay 1 | Claimants without qualifying injuries | $2,500 |
| Quick-Pay 2 | Claimants with mild to moderate injuries (e.g., single surgery) | $25,000 |
| Traditional Pay | Claimants with severe injuries (e.g., multiple surgeries, permanent disability) | $60,000 – $100,000+ |
Additional Details:
- Average Settlement Range: $60,000 – $100,000, with higher amounts for severe cases
- Traditional Pay Option: Points-based system that considers the severity of injury
- Opt-Out Provision: Plaintiffs may opt out and pursue individual litigation, although trial dates may be delayed until 2029 or later
- Settlement Fund: A qualified settlement fund has been established to manage and distribute payments
May 1, 2025 Update
Despite Bard’s significant settlement last year, the MDL continues to grow. An additional 411 lawsuits were filed in the past month, bringing the total to 24,078. Claims filed after the initial settlement may be eligible for a second round of settlements, potentially with higher compensation.
December 2, 2024 Update
A new case management order introduces the Intensive Settlement Process (ISP), a structured framework designed to efficiently resolve cases. Ellen K. Reisman and John Jackson have been appointed as Special Masters to oversee its implementation. These Special Masters will supervise negotiations, mediate disputes, and ensure timely progress, reporting quarterly to the Court on the ISP’s status.
The ISP is set to launch in January 2027, requiring plaintiffs to wait over two years before active settlement efforts begin. The ISP will continue until all claims are addressed, but unresolved cases by June 2029 will allow claimants to exit the process and resume litigation. This extended timeline may be frustrating for many victims hoping for a quicker resolution.
October 8, 2024 Update
The MDL judge issued an order establishing new guidelines for cases where plaintiffs’ counsel cannot maintain communication with their clients.
This order was prompted by the recent settlement agreement in the Bard hernia mesh litigation, which has emphasized the need to efficiently manage the MDL’s docket. Under the new order, if plaintiffs’ counsel cannot reach their clients despite reasonable efforts, they may seek to dismiss these cases by filing a joint Stipulation of Dismissal and Notice of Withdrawal of Counsel. This process prevents further delay while preserving the rights of the plaintiffs.
Key elements of the order include:
- Dismissal Without Prejudice: Cases dismissed under this order will be without prejudice, meaning plaintiffs have one year to refile in the MDL. The refiled case will retain its original filing date for statute of limitations purposes.
- Counsel Withdrawal: Plaintiffs’ counsel will automatically be withdrawn from representation without further court action.
- Potential Dismissal With Prejudice: If plaintiffs do not refile within the one-year window, Defendants may request dismissal with prejudice, barring plaintiffs from refiling their claims.
- Compliance With Previous Orders: Refiled cases will be subject to all prior Case Management Orders, including CMO No. 53 and CMO No. 52.
Nguyen Injury Lawyer advises clients to maintain open communication with their legal team, regardless of their satisfaction with the settlement terms. Ensure your lawyers have your current contact information.
More information regarding the settlement is anticipated soon. Nguyen Injury Lawyer will provide updates as they become available.
October 2, 2024 Update
A settlement has been reached.
The settlement amount and payment timeline remain uncertain. The timing for receiving a settlement check from the recent Bard hernia mesh settlement can vary depending on the complexity of the case, the number of plaintiffs, and the settlement’s payment structure. According to reports, the settlement will be paid out over a multi-year period, with some plaintiffs potentially receiving checks in 2025, while others may receive payment later.
Nguyen Injury Lawyer is still accepting new cases and will provide updates as soon as more information is available.
September 16, 2024 Update
Attorneys for the plaintiffs are requesting the court to allow a surviving spouse to replace the deceased party as the plaintiff. The case was originally filed by the couple, but the husband passed away after the filing.
Settlement discussions are ongoing, and the judge is allowing the parties ample time to reach an agreement. A response is due to the motion discussed in the last update, and Bard’s response will be closely monitored.
September 4, 2024 Update
A family, frustrated by the continued delays in settlement discussions, is requesting that their hernia mesh lawsuit against Bard be transferred out of the MDL and sent back to its original jurisdiction in an Arizona federal court. Their lawsuit involves a wrongful death claim related to severe injuries caused by the Bard Composix Kugel Hernia Patch.
The urgency of this motion is heightened by the critical health decline of one of the plaintiffs in the wrongful death action, who is suffering from a renewed bout of cancer. The family believes that the MDL no longer benefits their case, citing the absence of forthcoming discovery processes and the cancellation of a planned fourth bellwether trial. They contend that returning the case to Arizona would allow them to leverage the comprehensive discovery already performed during the MDL to address their claims individually.
August 20, 2024 Update
The last docket entry in this litigation was on July 24th. Settlement news is still anticipated, and rumors suggest that the parties are nearing an agreement.
August 5, 2024 Update
There are currently no new updates available. Settlement rumors persist.
July 5, 2024 Update
If you are seeking news, there is news.
Hernia Mesh Lawsuit Updates
Two noteworthy filings occurred today. A new court order has placed a stay—a temporary pause—on all hernia mesh lawsuits within the MDL. This stay can be lifted for cases where plaintiffs choose to opt out of the Master Settlement Agreement, suggesting the existence of such an agreement.
Another order outlines the preliminary requirements for plaintiffs who opt out of the settlement.
While the specifics of the settlement remain confidential, these orders clearly imply that a settlement is in the works. Further details will be provided as they become available.
July 1, 2024, Update
June was a busy month for hernia mesh lawyers, with a focus on filing new lawsuits. An additional 745 lawsuits were filed last month. The reason for this surge will be explained in the next update. While the cutoff date for inclusion in the settlement is unknown, it is highly likely that filed lawsuits will be considered.
June 30, 2024, Update
On Friday, two law firms jointly filed a motion with Bard to keep the terms of their hernia mesh settlement confidential. They argued that public disclosure of the settlement would allow other plaintiffs’ lawyers to leverage it in their negotiations with Bard.
This development confirms previous reports that some firms have reached settlements with Bard. These settlements were previously rumored until this motion made it public.
Rumor has it that a larger Bard settlement has been reached (or is nearly finalized). An announcement could be made this week. Nguyen Injury Lawyer will keep you informed as updates become available.
June 25, 2024, Update
The last docket entry in the MDL was on May 30th.
Things have been quiet. There is ongoing settlement speculation, but nothing concrete at this time.
May 16, 2024, Update
Nguyen Injury Lawyer is once again accepting new Bard hernia mesh lawsuits. The duration for which we will continue to accept these cases is uncertain, but it is not expected to be for long. If you are considering filing a claim, now is the time to act.
April 29, 2024, Update
The MDL docket is inactive. The last entry was on April 12th. A settlement announcement is anticipated soon, but this remains speculative.
April 5, 2024, Update
The Bard hernia mesh MDL docket remains quiet. A case from West Virginia was transferred into the MDL, and an attorney withdrew from a leadership position, but these events are unrelated to settlement talks. That’s all for now.
Settlement rumors persist, with claims that “something will come out soon,” but there is nothing definitive to rely on. The settlement negotiators are a small group, and they are maintaining confidentiality regarding the hernia mesh settlement discussions.
Nguyen Injury Lawyer will continue to provide updates as they become available.
March 5, 2024, Update
Judge Sargus has issued an order outlining a mediation plan and schedule to facilitate a settlement in the Bard hernia mesh MDL. An in-person mediation session is scheduled for March 25 and March 26, 2024 (originally scheduled earlier in the month). The mediator is John Jackson.
If a settlement is not reached by May 24, 2024, the parties must submit a plan to move the litigation forward. It is unlikely that this will be a joint plan. We hope these cases can be settled.
March 3, 2024, Update
There are now 21,262 filed hernia mesh lawsuits in the MDL, making it the second-largest active MDL, surpassed only by the talc powder litigation.
February 20, 2024, Update
The next major opportunity for settlement is next month. As anticipated, the MDL judge issued CMO #51, establishing a new settlement mediation process for the hernia mesh litigation.
The plan includes an in-person session scheduled for March 4 and 5, 2024, with the possibility of additional meetings at the mediator’s discretion. (This has since been postponed, as noted in the March 5th update above.)
Parties involved in the mediation must notify the court by May 24, 2024, if an impasse occurs, and a joint proposal for moving the litigation forward is due by June 24, 2024. This likely means returning the cases to their local federal courts and proceeding with trials.
The mediation will involve key representatives from both the plaintiffs and defendants, including court-appointed mediator John Jackson, members of the Plaintiffs’ Negotiation Committee, and representatives with negotiating authority from the defendants’ side.
February 5, 2024, Update
CMO #50 was issued on Friday, addressing two main issues: whether to proceed with the Bryan case as the fourth bellwether trial, and how to manage and potentially remand Bard hernia mesh lawsuits to their original courts for further proceedings.
Let’s break it down in this litigation that may never end:
On Holding a Fourth Bellwether Trial
The court decided against holding a fourth bellwether trial. The judge believes that after three trials, and considering the associated costs and time, another trial would not provide significant additional value. The cases already tried involved different legal points and devices, and another trial on a different device would not fundamentally alter the issues. The 3M earplug litigation, for comparison, had 16 trials. A fifth endpoint would maintain pressure on the parties involved.
However, the court feels it has gained sufficient knowledge from the previous trials and that a new case would not significantly change the understanding of the issues.
The Bryan case was weakening for the defendants because the treating doctor’s testimony did not support the warnings case. While this may offer some relief, the absence of a scheduled trial could lead to further delays.
The Future Management and Structure of Potential Remand of Cases
The plaintiffs’ lawyers support remand and seek an order on how the remaining cases should be managed and sent back to their original courts for trial.
The court denied this request, deeming it premature and unreasonable. The court had hoped for a global settlement (an agreement to resolve all cases) before considering mass remanding cases. The proposal was viewed as unduly favoring plaintiffs by demanding expedited discovery (the process of gathering evidence) and trials, which the court considered unrealistic.
However, trial dates create the necessary pressure to settle. This litigation has been ongoing for a long time, and now the cases are expected to be settled without the pressure of trials? While the judge has done an excellent job administering this litigation, this approach may lead nowhere. Nguyen Injury Lawyer hopes to be proven wrong.
February 1, 2024, Update
Judge Sargus denied a motion for a new trial in Stinson yesterday.
Bard presented three main arguments, all of which the judge rejected:
- Inadequacy of IFU: The defendants argued that the plaintiff failed to demonstrate that the IFU for the PerFix Plug inadequately warned about the device’s risks. They claimed that the trial testimony was insufficient to prove inadequate warning about the device’s risks. However, the court noted that the defendants focused more on discrediting the witnesses’ conclusions rather than addressing the sufficiency of the evidence presented. The court maintained its stance from the summary judgment phase, emphasizing that it does not weigh evidence or make credibility determinations when ruling on a motion for judgment as a matter of law.
- Causation: The defendants argued that the plaintiff did not present sufficient evidence to show that any allegedly inadequate warning caused his injuries. They relied on the learned intermediary doctrine, asserting that their duty to warn was met since the implanting surgeon, Dr. Tan, knew the risks involved. Dr. Tan testified to warning the plaintiff about potential pain and nerve damage and acknowledged being aware of the risks of fibrosis, inflammation, and long-term pain. The defendants also referenced a patient education brochure warning about similar risks, suggesting Dr. Tan was informed about the risks pertinent to the case. However, the court pointed out that during the summary judgment phase, it was established that Dr. Tan expected the IFU to warn about risks specific to the PerFix Plug, like chronic pain and mesh contraction, indicating that there was a genuine issue regarding whether the warnings were adequate and whether they contributed to the plaintiff’s injuries.
- Failure to Warn and Negligence: The jury found for the plaintiff on the negligence claim based on failure to warn, not on design defect. The defendants tried to argue that if the plaintiff’s claims failed under a strict liability theory, they should also fail under a negligence theory. However, the court did not find this argument compelling enough to revisit its summary judgment ruling, indicating that the defendants did not present any new evidence or arguments that would lead the court to alter its previous decision.
December 1, 2023, Update
A fourth bellwether trial in the Bard hernia mesh lawsuit is scheduled to begin on April 8, 2024. This trial involves a case brought by Jacob Bryan, a Florida resident who experienced complications with the Bard 3DMax hernia mesh. Bryan alleges that design defects in the mesh led to its failure, requiring surgical removal in October 2017, and resulting in permanent injuries and pain.
It would be beneficial to schedule these trials back-to-back to increase pressure on the defendants. Bard faces setbacks and then has time to recover before the next challenge.
November 9, 2023, Update
Another plaintiffs’ verdict in Stinson: $500,000.
Bard presented strong expert witnesses in Stinson—the kind that possess a veneer of credibility that can be intimidating for plaintiffs’ lawyers. However, the jury saw through their testimony.
Bard has now lost three consecutive cases:
| Plaintiff | Date | Jurisdiction | Verdict |
|---|---|---|---|
| Johns | July 2021 | MDL – Ohio | Defense |
| Milanesi | April 2022 | MDL – Ohio | $250,000 |
| Trevino | August 2022 | Rhode Island | $4,800,000 |
| Stinson | November 2023 | MDL – Ohio | $500,000 |
Johns was a loss, but it was a challenging case.
Surprisingly, Bard might not be entirely dissatisfied with the verdict. It could have been much worse, as there were no punitive damages awarded. It is unclear what Bard is waiting for to make a reasonable settlement offer to resolve most of these cases.
Bard should have capitalized on the win and settled after the Johns case. Bard knew—or should have known—that it was an isolated incident unlikely to be repeated. Plaintiffs’ expectations are now higher.
November 3, 2023, Update
The defense is still presenting its case in Stinson. Dr. Radke, the explanting surgeon, testified via videotape yesterday.
November 1, 2023, Update
Yesterday was dedicated to Dr. Pomerants’ testimony, including continued direct examination, cross-examination, and redirect examination. He is a significant witness in this case, but it is unlikely that the jury will attribute this man’s problems to an assault that occurred 30 years ago.
October 31, 2023, Update
The plaintiff concluded his case yesterday. The defendant began their defense, calling BJ J Pomerants, MD, who testified that the plaintiff’s pre-implant injuries and conditions “affected how he perceives pain in his groin both before and after the implant surgery.” This is Bard’s typical strategy of seeking to blame someone or something other than its product.
October 26, 2023, Update
Our prediction that Bard would come to its senses and settle Stinson did not materialize. We are now on Day 9 of the trial, and the plaintiff is expected to conclude his case this week.
What are the facts in Stinson? The plaintiff underwent a right inguinal hernia repair using the Extra-Large PerFix Plug mesh manufactured by the defendants.
Two years later, due to persistent pain in his right groin, the plaintiff underwent another surgery to determine if the hernia had returned or if there was nerve damage.
If you or a loved one has been injured by a hernia mesh device, contact Nguyen Injury Lawyer today at (713) 747-7777 for a free consultation or visit our website at https://www.nguyeninjurylawyer.com. You can also reach us through our contact page: https://www.nguyeninjurylawyer.com/contact.
Hernia Mesh Litigation Updates
During surgery, the patient’s physician discovered substantial scarring and a “large ball” of mesh, approximately 2.5 cm in diameter, that had accumulated near a bone. Due to the extensive scarring, removing the mesh proved difficult. Following its removal, the surgeon utilized another Bard product, Bard Marlex Mesh, to repair the hernia.
June 5, 2023 Update
Bard has seemingly changed its position and no longer wishes for the Stinson case to proceed to trial. Their reasoning is that the plaintiff’s injuries have worsened to such an extent that it is no longer a suitable bellwether trial. Bard claims they want to avoid a significant verdict in Stinson, as it could lead to increased settlement expectations.
Nguyen Injury Lawyer believes this argument is flawed. The initial two bellwether trials were not particularly strong cases for the plaintiffs, which could be considered unrepresentative. This tactic aligns with Bard’s strategy of prolonging the legal process to preserve capital, hoping that delays will encourage plaintiffs to accept lower settlement offers. Should the judge agree to postpone the Stinson trial, which is unlikely, it would further delay the preparation of the next case for trial.
June 1, 2023 Update
As many individuals involved are aware, mass tort lawsuits can be lengthy. Some plaintiffs attempt to avoid class action status to pursue individual claims. In Vaughn et al. v. Kentuckiana Surgical Specialists, P.S.C., et al., the plaintiff filed a hernia mesh lawsuit in the Western District of Kentucky, seeking to transfer it to the Southern District of Ohio and avoid inclusion in the Bard MDL, arguing that the transfer would inconvenience them and non-Bard healthcare defendants.
However, the MDL Panel determined that the case shares common factual questions with those already transferred to MDL No. 2846. The central issue is the claim that Bard’s polypropylene hernia mesh products are defective, leading to complications such as adhesions, organ damage, and infections when implanted in patients.
May 25, 2023 Update
In the Trevino case, the Rhode Island judge reduced the verdict by $250,000 but upheld $4.55 million in post-trial motions. Nguyen Injury Lawyer finds it difficult to understand the logic behind reducing the jury’s award, even by a small amount, considering the plaintiff’s suffering and the evidence presented at trial. Nevertheless, the Rhode Island Superior Court judge’s ruling is ultimately a victory, as it preserves the majority of the award and affirms key rulings that Bard opposed.
May 13, 2023 Update
Progress in the hernia mesh litigation has been slow while awaiting the Stinson trial and hoping for a settlement beforehand. Recently, a new motion was filed in Stinson concerning the admissibility of evidence related to Mr. Stinson’s workers’ compensation claim. Bard seeks to exclude evidence of the workers’ compensation award and its amount.
The plaintiff’s counsel argues that the collateral source rule should prevent the defendants from mentioning workers’ compensation during the trial. Nguyen Injury Lawyer believes the plaintiff is likely to prevail on this motion. The purpose of the rule is to prevent the jury from reducing Mr. Stinson’s damages award based on the assumption that he has already received compensation from a collateral source. Furthermore, the workers’ compensation claim has no evidentiary value.
March 20, 2023 Update
As anticipated, a settlement appears imminent in Stinson v. C.R. Bard, which was scheduled as the third test case in the C.R. Bard hernia mesh MDL on May 15, 2023. The trial has been delayed without the plaintiff’s objection, strongly suggesting a potential settlement.
Despite the denial of a summary judgment motion by the defense, allowing the case to proceed, Bard’s defense team requested a postponement, which the MDL judge granted two days later. The new trial date remains uncertain. This delay could indicate ongoing settlement negotiations. Nguyen Injury Lawyer will provide updates as more information becomes available.
March 15, 2023 Update
The Stinson trial is set for May 15th. Plaintiff’s lawyers successfully opposed a motion to dismiss, meaning C.R. Bard and Davol will face most of the claims in a lawsuit filed by a Maine resident. The plaintiff alleges a defective hernia mesh product caused pain and complications.
The suit is scheduled to be the third bellwether trial in the multidistrict litigation, which involves over 18,000 cases against the two companies. The plaintiff asserts that the polypropylene used in the mesh is unsuitable for permanent implantation and leads to complications. The judge allowed the plaintiff to proceed with the design defect claim and seek punitive damages. Negligence and warranty claims were also cleared for trial, while judgment was granted for the companies on other claims.
February 9, 2023 Update
The Bard MDL judge issued an order outlining a detailed schedule for the third hernia mesh bellwether trial (Stinson v. C.R. Bard et al.). Pretrial conferences are scheduled for May 2nd and 3rd, with the trial commencing on May 15, 2023. Both sides must submit their final witness lists this month. The judge also requires lawyers for all parties to propose dates for a fourth bellwether trial later in the year.
January 27, 2023 Update
Nguyen Injury Lawyer recently published a status update on hernia mesh lawsuits, examining the current situation and settlement prospects for 2023. Visit https://www.nguyeninjurylawyer.com for more information.
January 18, 2023 Update
Currently, 18,403 Bard mesh lawsuits are pending in the hernia mesh class action. This represents an increase of 176 cases over the past 30 days, the most significant percentage increase among all mass tort MDLs during that period. The high volume of new cases in this MDL has persisted for several months as the next bellwether trial in May approaches.
January 2, 2022 Update
Rhode Island state court, the venue for the significant Trevino verdict, continues to receive new hernia mesh lawsuits. Twenty-three new suits against Bard have been filed in Rhode Island since Christmas.
September 5, 2022 Update
During the Trevino trial, it was revealed that C.R. Bard used a plastic resin in its mesh products even after the supplier deemed it unsafe for that purpose.
C.R. Bard used a plastic made by LyondellBasell called Pro-fax 6523 in all its hernia mesh products because it was the cheapest available material that met specifications. Bard did this despite LyondellBasell deeming Pro-fax 6523 unfit for permanent implantation inside the body and expressly prohibiting buyers from using it in hernia mesh products.
Nguyen Injury Lawyer believes that C.R. Bard’s knowing disregard of this prohibition is a significant revelation that could shift the momentum in the C.R. Bard class action lawsuit.
August 29, 2022 Update
A verdict has been reached in Rhode Island: $4.8 million. Paul Trevino’s lawsuit alleged that C.R. Bard’s Ventralex hernia patch eroded into his bowel because they chose materials based on price rather than safety. The jury agreed, finding both a defective design and a failure to warn of the risk. Nguyen Injury Lawyer believes the settlement value of Bard hernia mesh cases has increased as a result of this verdict.
August 26, 2022 Update
A verdict in a Bard Ventralex patch case, Trevino v. Bard, may be reached today in Rhode Island state court.
In Trevino, the plaintiff claims that the defendants knew or should have known that the PET ring, a component of the Ventralex Mesh, was prone to breaking or buckling, increasing the risk of severe, permanent injuries. Despite these risks, the defendants intended for their product to be implanted for the purposes and in the manner that the plaintiff and her implanting physician used it.
June 14, 2022 Update
Plaintiff Antonio Milanesi filed a response to C.R. Bard’s post-verdict motion for JMOL. The response correctly points out that the arguments made in Bard’s current JMOL are the same arguments that the court has previously rejected on two occasions (Summary Judgment and pre-verdict JMOL).
The response also contends that the plaintiffs did satisfy the standard of proof for product defect under Florida law with competent expert testimony regarding the problems with the Ventralex mesh.
May 24, 2022 Update
Nguyen Injury Lawyer was pleased with Antonio Milanesi’s victory in the second bellwether hernia mesh trial but felt the $255,000 verdict was insufficient given Mr. Milanesi’s suffering.
Both sides have filed post-verdict motions challenging the trial’s outcome. The defendants filed a Motion for Judgment as a Matter of Law, claiming that the plaintiffs failed to establish the elements for causation or design defect under applicable Florida law.
Plaintiffs’ Lawyers Seek New Trial on Damages Only
The plaintiffs’ hernia mesh lawyer filed a Motion for a New Trial on Damages. The legal argument is that the trial judge failed to adequately explain to the jury that the defense had the burden of proof on mitigating damages. The likely scenario for the low jury payout is the jury blamed the surgeon who did the initial procedure. Plaintiff’s attorney is seeking the dream scenario: a new trial on damages only.
Both sides are due to file responses tomorrow.
May 23, 2022 Update
As of May 16, the C.R. Bard MDL-2846 has 18,803 active cases. The second bellwether trial, which resulted in a $250,000 verdict, concluded over a month ago. However, a date for the next bellwether trial has not yet been set, and only three new cases have been added this month.
Nguyen Injury Lawyer hopes Bard will offer reasonable settlement amounts, but there are no concrete developments at this time. Updates will be provided as soon as they become available.
May 3, 2022 Update
There have been no recent updates in the hernia mesh litigation. A new trial date will be set at some point, but that has not yet occurred. Nguyen Injury Lawyer expects a trial date in October 2022 for the third bellwether, but the exact date is still pending.
The Johnson & Johnson Ethicon Physiomesh hernia mesh lawsuits have been settled, which may have some impact on the Bard lawsuits. However, the Bard hernia mesh claims differ significantly from the Physiomesh claims. The most significant difference is that settlement is much easier when a product is recalled, as was the case with the Physiomesh.
April 16, 2022 Hernia Mesh Trial Verdict
VERDICT: $250,000 to Mr. Milanesi; $5,000 to his wife. The plaintiff prevailed on his defective design claim, and Ms. Milanesi brought a loss of consortium claim. While a more substantial verdict would have been preferable, if each plaintiff in this litigation were to receive a $255,000 settlement, Bard would pay $4 billion to resolve every hernia mesh lawsuit filed in the federal class action. Additionally, many hernia mesh lawsuits allege far more severe injuries than Mr. Milanesi’s.
Was the Verdict in Milanesi Too Low?
Nguyen Injury Lawyer understands the disappointment in the verdict’s size. However, the bellwether impact is more about winning or losing than the verdict’s size.
Unique Facts of Milanesi on Damages
If you or a loved one has been injured by a defective hernia mesh, contact Nguyen Injury Lawyer at (713) 747-7777 or visit https://www.nguyeninjurylawyer.com/contact for a free consultation. Our attorneys are here to help you understand your legal options and pursue the compensation you deserve.
Understanding Hernia Mesh Settlement Amounts
In the Milanesi v. C.R. Bard, Inc. case, Bard attributed the plaintiff’s injuries to the surgeon’s choice of a large Ventralight mesh. The jury’s relatively modest award of $225,000 may have reflected their belief that the surgeon bore some responsibility. This “blame the doctor” defense won’t be applicable in most cases. Therefore, it’s crucial not to assume that a similar case would yield the same result. The August 2022 Trevino v. Bard verdict, awarding $4.8 million for similar suffering, underscores this point.
Hernia Mesh Settlement Amounts Should Reflect Reality
The variance in jury payouts indicates that some claims will be challenging to win at trial. Plaintiffs will experience both victories and losses in hernia mesh lawsuits, particularly in cases against Becton Dickinson/C.R. Bard/Davol. Ultimately, settlement amounts will be determined based on this reality.
C.R. Bard Inc., now a subsidiary of Beckton-Dickinson, is a New Jersey-based medical device company. For two decades, Bard has been a leading manufacturer of hernia mesh devices. These implants are small, artificial screens or meshes used during hernia repair surgery to reinforce surgically repaired muscle walls.
In the early 2000s, Bard pioneered permanent, non-absorbable hernia mesh products. These implants must be biocompatible, meaning the body’s immune system accepts them without forming abnormal attachments to adjacent tissues or organs. Bard’s permanent hernia mesh products include the Bard® Mesh and the Ventralight ST Mesh.
Polypropylene
These mesh implants are made from polypropylene, a thermoplastic polymer used in diverse applications beyond hernia mesh. Polypropylene is lightweight, durable, chemically resistant, elastic, and tough. It’s used in packaging, textiles, automotive parts, reusable containers, laboratory equipment, and medical devices. Bard favors polypropylene because it’s easily molded into different shapes, which streamlines manufacturing.
The plastic mesh is coated to create a protective barrier between the mesh and surrounding organs. This coating aims to prevent the mesh from sticking to or fusing with nearby tissue, reducing complications during healing.
However, Bard’s hernia mesh implants have been found to have flaws that lead to complications, undermining the mesh’s intended purpose. Some patients experienced mesh erosion, migration, or adhesion to other organs, resulting in chronic pain, infections, bowel obstructions, and the need for additional surgeries. These design issues led to numerous adverse health outcomes, triggering litigation seven years ago.
One problem is that polypropylene is not biologically inert in the human body. Biologically inert substances do not react chemically or biologically with living tissues or fluids in the body. Biocompatibility is essential for implanted devices.
Polypropylene is known to expand and shrink, causing severe injury and impacting a patient’s quality of life. When polypropylene degrades, it causes a material loss, leading to an increased surface area for bacteria to adhere to and release toxic compounds from the PP. This also increases the inflammatory reaction and the intensity of fibrosis. Instead of being biologically inert inside the body, Bard’s mesh devices’ material was incompatible with some patients’ immune systems, leading to many health problems.
Additionally, the scientific and medical community recognizes that polypropylene degrades after implantation. This can lead to infection, irritation, and severe pain as the body tries to rid itself of foreign material.
Consequences
After mesh implantation, many patients experienced severe immune responses, leading to significant inflammation, pain, and discomfort.
In some cases, the protective coating on the mesh broke down or dissolved, causing the mesh to adhere to nearby tissues, such as the bowel or other organs. These complications often resulted in serious health issues.
Bard’s hernia mesh devices have been linked to internal injuries and severe complications. Common problems include internal infections, chronic pain, and bowel obstructions caused by the mesh interfering with normal bodily functions.
The mesh could also detach from its original placement and migrate to other areas of the body, puncturing adjacent tissue or organs.
The mesh also adhered to vital organs or tissues. This has led to further complications and the need for corrective surgeries.
Get Help from Nguyen Injury Lawyer
If you believe you have a claim, it’s crucial to act quickly. Contact Nguyen Injury Lawyer at (713) 747-7777 for a free consultation or reach out through our contact page at https://www.nguyeninjurylawyer.com/contact. Our attorneys believe settlements are likely in the near future.