A mourning widow recently filed a defective hernia mesh lawsuit, arguing that her late husband died due to complications associated with his Composix hernia repair mesh manufactured by Bard.

Plaintiff Robin W. recently filed her defective hernia mesh lawsuit on behalf of her deceased husband Jack W., alleging that his Bard hernia repair mesh was defective and caused lead to his death. Robin seeks to hold C.R. Bard Inc. and Davol Inc. accountable for allegedly manufacturing and distributing a defective product.

Robin says that in September 2007, Jack underwent hernia repair surgery and was implanted with the Bard Composix Mesh. She claims that due to the allegedly defective hernia mesh, Jack developed multiple complications including foreign body response, infection, and fistula. Jack died in July 2016, allegedly due to these complications.

Hernia Mesh in Repairs

Hernia repairs are a common surgery in which a hernia in the abdominal wall is patched with a hernia repair mesh. The mesh is designed to incorporate with the abdominal wall, but the use of hernia mesh products can be difficult.

The polypropylene often used in hernia repair products is supposed to adhere to the abdominal wall; however, adhesions often form when the polypropylene of a hernia repair mesh is exposed to internal organs. The resulting adhesions can be painful and cause complications which may necessitate removal of the mesh.

Should the mesh need to be removed, and adhesions formed, the process can be difficult and complicated.

“For decades, there were concerns in the medical community about severe complications if a foreign object, such as a mesh, was placed too close to the bowel or other underlying organs, due to inflammation in the presence of sensitive organs and the formation of dense adhesions to the device,” the defective hernia mesh lawsuit states.

Composix Mesh

C.R. Bard’s Composix mesh, which Jack was implanted with, is composed of two layers: an ePTFE sheet and a polypropylene mesh. The polypropylene mesh is designed to promote incorporation into the abdominal wall whereas the ePTFE side is designed to prevent adhesion formation.

However, the hernia mesh lawsuit argues, “the utilization of ePTFE results in the product being highly prone to infection, while the utilization of polypropylene results in the product being extremely difficult to remove once the ePTFE Bard Mesh becomes infected.”

Robin claims that Bard and Davol failed to properly test their hernia mesh product before releasing it onto the market. Robin also argues that after the product was released, and reports of complications arose, the defendants allegedly knew about the potential risks associated with the mesh but continued to sell the product due to its high profit margin.

Robin accuses the defendants of a wide variety of violations including manufacturing defect, design defect, failure to warn, negligence, breach of warranties, gross negligence, negligent infliction of emotional distress, fraudulent concealment, negligent misrepresentation, and wrongful death. The defective hernia mesh lawsuit seeks compensatory damages, restitution and disgorgement, punitive damages, economic damages, court costs, and attorneys’ fees.

The Defective Hernia Mesh Lawsuit is Case No. 1:18-cv-00506-SJD in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Ohio.