C.R. Bard is facing a recently filed Bard mesh lawsuit alleging the manufacturer failed to warn the general public against the allegedly defective nature of their hernia mesh products.

This Bard mesh lawsuit was filed by a man from Minnesota, who opted for the PerFix Plug after reviewing the marketing statements from Bard and was not aware of potential device complications like infection.

Plaintiff Steven N. filed the Bard mesh lawsuit by claiming that Bard’s advertisements were exaggerating the benefits of the device but did not sufficiently discuss adverse effects. According to the Bard mesh lawsuit, Steven had the PerFix Plug implanted on Dec. 6, 2011 to repair an inguinal hernia on his left side.

The PerFix Plug hernia mesh product consists of several layers of polypropylene material, which is designed to induce swelling and inflammation in the surrounding tissue so it can grow around the mesh. This encourages the hernia repair process, with the swelling and inflammation supposed to gradually dissipate over time.

C.R. Bard allegedly marketed the PerFix Plug product as a safe and effective treatment product for hernia repair, which Steven and his physician relied on.

Overview of Bard Mesh Lawsuit

However, this was not the case for Steven, who had allegedly suffered a number of device complications soon after the PerFix Plug was implanted. According to the Bard mesh lawsuit, Steven had to undergo revision surgery on June 12, 2012, to have the PerFix Plug removed and replaced by another Bard mesh product.

During the surgery, it was noted that removing the hernia mesh was “extremely difficult,” due to the severe scarring around the mesh area. Furthermore, the Bard mesh lawsuit noted the Steven had to undergo an open surgery on May 28, 2013, for wound exploration purposes to find the source of his chronic pain.

Later that year on Oct. 21, 2013, Steven had undergone open surgery again to remove the Bard Mesh with surgeons noting that this procedure was also “extremely difficult” due to mesh scarring in the abdominal wall. Even with all these extensive procedures, Steven continues to suffer from chronic pain and diminished quality of life.

Steven had decided to file the Bard mesh lawsuit soon after discovering that the PerFix Plug and Bard Mesh contained layers of polypropylene mesh, which he says are biologically incompatible with patient implantation.

The polypropylene mesh material is used in a number of hernia mesh products, which is ideal for the inflammation response. However, in cases where the inflammation does not dissipate, Steven alleges it could cause infection and can compound into other problems including:

• Chronic Pain
• Hernia Recurrence
• Foreign Body Response or Rejection
• Mesh Scarring
• Adhesions in Internal Organs
• Mesh Erosion
• Seroma Formation
• Nerve Damage
• Tissue Damage
• Death

Steven claims that even though these hernia mesh complications can be devastating to patients, C.R. Bard allegedly failed to warn the general public. At all times relevant, Steven says he and his physician had relied on the marketing materials provided by C.R. Bard and had followed all recovery instructions after the mesh products were implanted.

Steven states that he would not have agreed to have the PerFix Plug or Bard Mesh implanted if he had been aware of the potential device complications.

This Bard Mesh Lawsuit is Case No. 2:18-cv-10399-MCA-CLW, in the U.S. District Court of New Jersey.