Accepting Cases

Hernia Mesh Lawsuits

New hernia mesh lawsuits blame Atrium C-QUR, Ethicon Physiomesh and various models of Bard Davol polypropylene hernia mesh for serious complications. People with injuries have filed more than 3,000 lawsuits. Previous lawsuits resulted in a $1.5 million verdict and a $184 million settlement.

As of September 2018, there were more than 2,300 lawsuits pending in multidistrict litigations (MDLs). The federal lawsuits target three hernia mesh manufacturers.

One MDL involves Ethicon’s Physiomesh Flexible Composite mesh. A second one targets Atrium C-QUR products. And the third includes different versions of Bard Davol’s line of polypropylene products.

Ethicon Physiomesh Flexible Composite Mesh MDL
As of September 2018, there were 1,417 lawsuits pending over Ethicon’s Physiomesh Flexible Composite hernia mesh. Those lawsuits were in the Georgia Northern District Court. The Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation established the MDL in June 2017.
Atrium C-QUR Mesh MDL
A total of 755 Atrium C-QUR mesh lawsuits were pending in New Hampshire District Court as of September 2018. The judicial panel established the consolidated litigation in December 2016.
Bard Davol Hernia Mesh MDL
As of September 2018, there were 150 lawsuits over different brands of Bard Davol’s polypropylene products pending. The MDL panel established the litigation on Aug. 2, 2018.

The first Ethicon Physiomesh trial is expected to happen in late 2019 or in 2020. The first Atrium C-QUR trial is scheduled for Feb. 19, 2020. The Bard Davol MDL is in its earliest stages. No trial dates in that MDL have been set.

Additional cases are pending in state courts. In August 2018, the New Jersey Supreme Court consolidated 62 Physiomesh lawsuits in state court into a multicounty litigation in Atlantic County.

People are also filing individual lawsuits against the manufacturer Covidien over its Parietex mesh.

Manufacturer Models Involved in Lawsuits
Atrium C-QUR Mesh, C-QUR Edge Mesh V-Patch, C-QUR Lite Mesh V-Patch, C-QUR OVT Mesh, C-QUR RPM Mesh, C-QUR TacShield, C-QUR V-Patch, C-QUR Mosaic
Bard Davol All polypropylene brands, including PerFix Mesh, 3DMax Mesh, Ventralex Patch, Ventralex ST Mesh, Sepramesh IP Composite Mesh, Composix E/X Mesh
Covidien Parietex Surgical Mesh, Parietex Composite Mesh, Parietex ProGrip Mesh
Ethicon Physiomesh Flexible Composite Mesh

Organ Damage, Other Complications

People who filed lawsuits suffered complications so severe they needed at least one additional surgery to fix their problems. Some required more. And many people claim their complications continued after attempts to repair their problems.

Scientific studies have questioned the effectiveness of some mesh products, and companies have pulled products off the market after high failure rates were reported.

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration has even sent a warning to at least one company over its manufacturing and quality control process at a manufacturing plant. The FDA says many of the reports it’s received regarding complications are associated with recalled mesh.

The brands named in the current MDLs all contain polypropylene. Products made of this material can sometimes shrink, break or erode. If this happens, it can cause organ damage and other complications.

Injuries claimed in lawsuits include:
  • Adherence (sticking to internal tissue)
  • Bowel obstruction
  • Infection
  • Mesh failure (breaking, shrinking, eroding)
  • Migration (moving from where it was implanted)
  • Perforation of organs or tissues
  • Seromas (pockets of fluid) that require surgery

Some people who filed C-QUR hernia mesh lawsuits also claim additional injuries. Atrium derives C-QUR’s coating from fish oil. Some patients claim it led to “allergic or inflammatory” responses that caused further complications.

Patient Injuries
Lillian Graham
Lillian Graham underwent a hernia repair with Physiomesh at Memorial Hospital in Jacksonville, Florida. She developed complications so severe she needed surgery to remove the Physiomesh.

In her lawsuit, Graham claimed she suffered infection and organ damage. The complaint said the mesh caused a fistula – an abnormal passage between her abdominal wall and her small intestine. The surgeon had to remove the fistula. In the process, the lawsuit said, he found a cavity in her abdominal wall “containing very purulent foul-smelling wadded up mesh material.”

The doctor had to surgically remove the mesh. Graham underwent further surgery about five months later to repair adhesions to her bowel.
Michael Miller
In February 2016, Michael Miller received two Bard Davol 3DMax meshes during a hernia repair in Saratoga Springs, New York. His hernia came back less than a month later, and he needed another surgery. This time, a surgeon used a Bard Davol PerFix Plug.

Miller’s lawsuit claimed that he continued to suffer pain and recurring hernias in the months following revision surgery. He could not eat without pain or bloating. And, the lawsuit said, he developed “sexual difficulty” after the surgery.
James D. Brown
James D. Brown underwent hernia repair with Atrium’s C-QUR mesh in December 2013. But he continued to suffer abdominal pain. In January 2016, Brown had the material removed. A pathology report found tissue in the mesh.

The report also noted foreign-body giant cell reaction. This is the result of the body’s defense system reacting to a foreign object. There were also signs of thickening and scaring of connective tissue around the material.

Brown’s lawsuit claimed he continued to suffer pain following the mesh removal.
Injured by complications related to Hernia Mesh? Free Case Review

Court Instructions for Physiomesh Evidence

People who have mesh removed should make arrangements to preserve it in case they later decide to file a lawsuit.

Did You Know?
Preserving mesh and other medical devices can be crucial to winning a lawsuit. It can provide evidence only available through examination of the product.

In May 2018, a court order set rules for preserving Physiomesh as evidence in lawsuits. Judge Richard Story’s order created step-by-step rules to store and preserve the material. The order outlined instructions in four stages.

Rules for Preserving and Storing Physiomesh for Trial
Preservation and Collection
Patients must tell their surgeons to preserve the product and tissue removed in surgery. They must also tell the hospital to ship the materials to Steelgate Inc. in Florida. Patients’ lawyers will coordinate shipping.
Storage
Steelgate will preserve and store all samples. Both sides of the lawsuits will split the monthly storage fees.
Evaluation
Lawyers for both sides may inspect the samples. They have to give notice before performing any tests. The other side can be present during these examinations. No tests may destroy any of the samples.
Other Pathology
Hospitals may preserve slides or paraffin blocks of removed materials. If a hospital turns these over, both sides may examine them. If the hospital refuses, each side may ask Steelgate to create slides and blocks. Both sides will have access to all these samples.

Bard Pays $184 Million to Resolve Earlier Lawsuits

Lawsuits over Bard Davol’s Kugel Patch formed an earlier MDL. It ended in a $184 million settlement in 2011.

Bard first recalled the patch in 2005. The company said it could cause bowel perforations and fistulas. The first lawsuits followed soon after.

In 2007, a federal panel combined the first 150 Kugel Patch lawsuits into an MDL in a Rhode Island federal court. Eventually, plaintiffs filed over 3,000 cases against C.R. Bard Inc.

There were two bellwether trials in 2010. Bard won the first, but a jury awarded $1.5 million to the plaintiffs in the second trial.

In the second trial, jurors heard the case of Christopher and Laure Thorpe of North Carolina. Christopher Thorpe underwent hernia repair with a Kugel Patch in 2005. Between 2007 and 2008, he underwent multiple surgeries to remove infection and a fistula resulting from the repair.

Following the verdict for the Thorpes, Bard offered to pay $184 million to settle the remaining 2,600 Kugel Patch lawsuits.

In September 2017, the Kugel Patch MDL was finally closed after 10 years of litigation.

Please seek the advice of a medical professional before making health care decisions.

Terry Turner
Written By Terry Turner Writer

Terry Turner has been writing articles and producing news broadcasts for more than 25 years. He covers FDA policy, proton pump inhibitors, and medical devices such as hernia mesh, IVC filters, and hip and knee implants. An Emmy-winning journalist, he has reported on health and medical policy issues before Congress, the FDA and other federal agencies. Some of his qualifications include:

  • American Medical Writers Association (AMWA) and The Alliance of Professional Health Advocates member
  • Centers for Disease Control and Prevention Health Literacy certificates
  • Original works published or cited in Washington Examiner, MedPage Today and The New York Times
  • Appeared as an expert panelist on hernia mesh lawsuits on the BBC
Legally Reviewed By

26 Cited Research Articles

  1. U.S. District Court, Middle District of Florida. (2017, February 27). Graham v. Johnson & Johnson; Civil Action No.: 3:17-cv-229-J-34JRK. Retrieved from http://www.pacer.gov
  2. U.S. District Court, Southern District of New York. (2018, May 4) Miller v. Bard Davol; Case No. 1:18-cv-00648. Retrieved from http://www.pacer.gov
  3. U.S. District Court, District of Rhode Island. (08, November 25). Thorpe v. Davol Inc.; Case No. 1:08-cv-00463. Retrieved from http://www.pacer.gov
  4. U.S. District Court of New Hampshire. (2017, January 9.) James and Kimberly Brown vs Atrium Medical Corporation. Retrieved from https://45ijagbx6du4albwj3e23cj1-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/wp-content/uploads/https-ecf-nhd-uscourts-gov-doc1-11711835179.pdf
  5. Lexis Legal News. (2017, September 9). Kugel Hernia Mesh Patch MDL Closed Sept. 15 After 10 Years. Retrieved from https://www.lexislegalnews.com/articles/20550/kugel-hernia-mesh-patch-mdl-closed-sept-15-after-10-years
  6. U.S. District Court, Southern District of Illinois. (2016, April 1). Matthew Huff vs. Ethicon, Inc. Retrieved from https://45ijagbx6du4albwj3e23cj1-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/wp-content/uploads/2016-04-01-Complaint.pdf
  7. The Internet Archive. (2016, May 25). Urgent: Field Safety Notice Ethicon Physiomesh Flexible Composite Mesh. Retrieved from https://archive.org/stream/EthiconPhysiomeshRecall/ethicon%20physiomesh%20recall_djvu.txt
  8. U.S. Food and Drug Administration. (2017, April 4). Hernia Surgical Mesh Implants. Retrieved from https://www.fda.gov/MedicalDevices/ProductsandMedicalProcedures/ImplantsandProsthetics/HerniaSurgicalMesh/default.htm
  9. Science Daily. (2016, October 18). Study finds mixed results for use of mesh for hernia repair. Retrieved from https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2016/10/161018094928.htm
  10. Kokotovic, D. et al. (2016). Long-term Recurrence and Complications Associated With Elective Incisional Hernia Repair. Retrieved from http://jamanetwork.com/journals/jama/fullarticle/2565771
  11. U.S. Food and Drug Administration. (2012, October 11). Warning Letter CMS # 363780. Retrieved from http://wayback.archive-it.org/7993/20161023095443/http://www.fda.gov/ICECI/EnforcementActions/WarningLetters/2012/ucm325084.htm
  12. U.S. District Court, District of New Hampshire. (2015, Feb. 3). Consent Decree of Permanent Injunction. U.S. Department of Justice. Retrieved from https://www.justice.gov/file/338871/download
  13. U.S. Panel on Multidistrict Litigation. (2016, December 8). IN RE: Atrium Medical Corp. C-QUR Mesh Products Liability Litigation; Transfer Order; MDL No. 2753. Retrieved from http://www.jpml.uscourts.gov/sites/jpml/files/MDL-2753-Initial_Transfer-12-16.pdf
  14. U.S. Panel on Multidistrict Litigation. (2017, June 2). IN RE: Ethicon Physiomesh Flexible Composite Hernia Mesh Products Liability Litigation; Transfer Order; MDL No. 2782. Retrieved from http://www.jpml.uscourts.gov/sites/jpml/files/MDL-2782-Initial_Transfer-05-17.pdf
  15. Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation. (2016, December 8). IN RE: Atrium Medical Corp. C-QUR Mesh Products Liability Litigation; MDL No. 2753. Retrieved from http://www.jpml.uscourts.gov/sites/jpml/files/MDL-2753-Initial_Transfer-12-16.pdf
  16. U.S. Department of Justice. (2015, February 3). District Court Enters Permanent Injunction Against New Hampshire Company and Senior Executives to Stop Distribution of Adulterated and Misbranded Products. Retrieved from https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/district-court-enters-permanent-injunction-against-new-hampshire-company-and-senior
  17. Schreinemacher, M.H., et al. (2009, March). Degradation of Mesh Coatings and Intraperitoneal Adhesion Formation in an Experimental Model. Retrieved from https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19224521
  18. FDA. (2010, April 9). 510(k) Premarket Notification; Physiomesh. Retrieved from https://www.accessdata.fda.gov/scripts/cdrh/cfdocs/cfpmn/pmn.cfm?ID=K093932
  19. FDA. (2006, March 31). 510(k) Premarket Notification; Atrium C-QUR. Retrieved from https://www.accessdata.fda.gov/scripts/cdrh/cfdocs/cfpmn/pmn.cfm?ID=K050311
  20. Perriello, B. (2016, June 20). J&J’s Ethicon recalls Physiomesh flexible composite hernia mesh. Retrieved from http://www.massdevice.com/jjs-ethicon-recalls-physiomesh-flexible-composite-hernia-mesh/
  21. Villarraga, M.L. (2017, February 21). Preserving Evidence in a Product Liability Case: Focus on Medical Devices. American Bar Association. Retrieved from https://www.americanbar.org/groups/litigation/committees/expert-witnesses/articles/2017/preserving-evidence-prod-liab-case-focus-on-medical-devices.html
  22. U.S. District Court, Northern District of Georgia. (2018, January 19). In re: Ethicon Physiomesh Flexible Composite Hernia Mesh Products Liability Litigation; Practice and Procedure Order No. 7. Retrieved from http://www.gand.uscourts.gov/sites/default/files/rws2782_doc297.pdf
  23. U.S. District Court, Northern District of Georgia. (2018, May 29). In re: Ethicon Physiomesh Flexible Composite Hernia Mesh Products Liability Litigation; Practice and Procedure Order No. 11. Retrieved from http://www.gand.uscourts.gov/sites/default/files/rws2782_Doc345.pdf
  24. U.S. District Court, District of New Hampshire. (2018, May 29). In re: Atrium Medical Corp. C-QUR Mesh Products Liability Litigation; Case Management Order 3H. Retrieved from http://www.nhd.uscourts.gov/pdf/Atrium_CMO3H.pdf
  25. U.S. Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation. (2018, August 2). Transfer Order. In re: Davol, Inc./C.R. Bard, Inc., Polypropylene Hernia Mesh Products Liability Litigation. Retrieved from http://www.jpml.uscourts.gov/sites/jpml/files/MDL-2846-Transfer-Order-7-18.pdf
  26. U.S. Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation. (2018, September 17). MDL Statistics Report - Distribution of Pending MDL Dockets by District. Retrieved from http://www.jpml.uscourts.gov/sites/jpml/files/Pending_MDL_Dockets_By_District-September-17-2018.pdf
View All Sources
Who Am I Calling?

Calling this number connects you with Wilson and Peterson, LLP or one of its trusted legal partners. A law firm representative will review your case for free.

Wilson and Peterson, LLP funds Drugwatch because it supports the organization’s mission to keep people safe from dangerous drugs and medical devices.

(844) 807-8916

To contact Drugwatch Managing Editor Kevin Connolly, call (855) 839-9780.