Hernia Mesh Lawsuit

What Is the Hernia Mesh Lawsuit?

The hernia mesh lawsuit encompasses thousands of claims against multiple medical device manufacturers whose surgical mesh products have caused serious complications in patients who underwent hernia repair surgery. Unlike many mass tort cases that involve a single product, the hernia mesh litigation spans several manufacturers and dozens of mesh products, each with separate legal proceedings.

The primary cases are consolidated into two major multidistrict litigations: MDL 2846 (C.R. Bard, in the Southern District of Ohio) and MDL 2782 (Ethicon/Johnson & Johnson, in the Northern District of Georgia). Additional cases against Atrium Medical and Covidien (Medtronic) proceed through separate proceedings. Combined, more than 20,000 cases have been filed.

Plaintiffs allege that these manufacturers designed, manufactured, and sold defective mesh products that cause complications including chronic pain, mesh erosion, infection, bowel obstruction, and the need for additional surgeries to remove or repair the mesh. The lawsuits also allege that companies failed to adequately warn patients and surgeons about the risks associated with their products.

If you experienced complications after a hernia mesh implant, you may be eligible to join the litigation. Learn about how mass tort lawsuits work and whether you need an attorney for your claim.

Hernia Mesh Complications

Hernia mesh is intended to reinforce the surgical repair and prevent hernia recurrence. However, many patients have experienced serious complications that can develop weeks, months, or even years after the initial surgery. The most commonly reported complications include:

If you have experienced any of these complications following a hernia mesh surgery, you may have a valid claim against the mesh manufacturer. Many patients are unaware that their ongoing health problems are related to the mesh product, attributing them instead to the normal aftermath of surgery. A medical review by your doctor and a legal consultation can help determine whether your complications are mesh-related.

Mesh Products & Manufacturers

Dozens of hernia mesh products from multiple manufacturers are involved in the litigation. Identifying the specific mesh used in your surgery is important because it determines which legal proceeding your case falls into. Your surgical records should contain the brand, model, and lot number of your mesh implant.

Who Qualifies for the Hernia Mesh Lawsuit?

Eligibility for the hernia mesh lawsuit depends on the type of mesh used, the complications experienced, and whether the statute of limitations applies. Because multiple manufacturers and products are involved, an attorney can help determine which specific litigation track applies to your case.

Lawsuit Timeline

The hernia mesh litigation has evolved over more than a decade as complications became increasingly well-documented. Here are the key milestones across the multiple MDLs and proceedings:

Settlement Amounts & Verdicts

The hernia mesh litigation has already produced significant settlements. In 2023, Becton Dickinson (parent company of C.R. Bard) agreed to a $184 million settlement to resolve a portion of hernia mesh claims in MDL 2846. Ethicon/Johnson & Johnson settlement negotiations are ongoing.

Individual jury verdicts in bellwether trials have ranged from hundreds of thousands to millions of dollars. However, actual compensation for each claimant depends on the specific circumstances of their case, including the severity of complications and the mesh product involved.

For more context on how settlements work in mass tort cases, read our guide on mass tort settlement amounts.

How to File a Claim

Filing a hernia mesh claim requires identifying the specific mesh product involved, documenting your complications, and working with an attorney who can navigate the multi-manufacturer litigation landscape. Most hernia mesh attorneys work on a contingency fee basis.

Named Defendants

The hernia mesh litigation involves four primary defendant groups, each with separate legal proceedings:

• C.R. Bard / Becton Dickinson (BD) — MDL 2846 (Southern District of Ohio). Bard is one of the largest hernia mesh manufacturers. Their products include the Ventralex, PerFix Plug, and 3DMax. BD agreed to a $184 million settlement in 2023.
• Ethicon (Johnson & Johnson) — MDL 2782 (Northern District of Georgia). Ethicon's Physiomesh was recalled in 2016 due to higher-than-expected complication rates. Other products including Proceed and Prolene Hernia System are also subject to claims. Settlement negotiations are ongoing.
• Atrium Medical (Maquet/Getinge Group) — Atrium's C-QUR mesh used an omega-3 fish oil coating that allegedly caused inflammation and adhesions. Cases are consolidated in the District of New Hampshire.
• Covidien (Medtronic) — Covidien's Parietex mesh products have been subject to product liability claims. Cases proceed through various federal and state courts.

The multi-manufacturer nature of this litigation is similar to other medical device cases like the Bard PowerPort lawsuit, though the hernia mesh case is larger in scale and involves more defendants.

Medical Evidence & FDA Actions

The evidence against defective hernia mesh products comes from multiple sources, including FDA adverse event reports, peer-reviewed medical literature, and internal company documents obtained through discovery:

• The FDA's MAUDE database contains thousands of adverse event reports related to hernia mesh complications, including chronic pain, infection, erosion, and obstruction.
• In 2016, the FDA issued a safety communication regarding the use of non-absorbable mesh for laparoscopic urogynecologic procedures, reclassifying certain mesh products.
• Studies published in the Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA) and other peer-reviewed journals have documented mesh complication rates that exceed what manufacturers disclosed.
• Internal company documents obtained in litigation have revealed that some manufacturers knew about complication risks but continued marketing their products without adequate warnings.
• The Ethicon Physiomesh recall in 2016 was prompted by data showing higher-than-expected rates of hernia recurrence and reoperation compared to competing products.

For related medical device litigation, see the CPAP machine lawsuit involving Philips Respironics.