A recent Bard Ventralight lawsuit claims that the hernia repair mesh is defective and poses a danger to patient health.

Plaintiff Herbert W. says he underwent hernia repair surgery in November 2016 to resolve a ventral incisional hernia.

His surgeon allegedly used a Ventralight ST Hernia Patch Mesh during the surgery. According to the Bard Ventralight lawsuit, this later caused issues due to the failed mesh.

As a result of the failed mesh product, Herbert reportedly experienced extensive injuries.

In July 2017, Herbert underwent additional surgery to remove the failed hernia mesh which required laparoscopic removal of adhesions, small bowel retraction, removal of part of the abdominal wall, and other intense mitigation.

Overview of Hernia Mesh

The Bard Ventralight hernia repair product is a polypropylene mesh designed for use in hernia repair surgery.

The material of the product allegedly makes it a dangerous choice for hernia repair, as polypropylene is reportedly known to expand and shrink in the body which can cause infection, irritation, and a damaging foreign body response.

Additionally, the nature of polypropylene reportedly means that bacteria can easily adhere to the material where they can be ferried to the delicate internal organs and cause an infection.

Polypropylene also allegedly tends to degrade and break down in the body, creating a “bacterial super highway” for fluids and bacteria to cause an infection.

A wide array of scientific literature reportedly shows that “polypropylene mesh repair does not improve symptomatic results or quality of life over traditional non-mesh repair.”

However, despite having access to the scientific data, the mesh manufacturers allegedly chose to release a polypropylene hernia repair product.

Actually, a number of manufacturers, like Johnson & Johnson, subsidiary Ethicon, and Davol, have released a hernia mesh product that is in litigation.

Atrium Medical had sufficient complaints to have a hernia mesh MDL created. Pelvic mesh complaints and claims are also common.

Mesh Lawsuit Claims

“Defendants were fully aware of the dangers defective products they were placing into the stream of commerce posed to their customers, specifically the Bard Ventralight ST polypropylene mesh, which has been shown to pose an unreasonable risk of human body inflammation, granuloma formation, foreign body reaction, excessive scar tissue formation and long-term complications,” the Bard Ventralight lawsuit claims.

Herbert argues that he and his doctor were not sufficiently warned about the complications which may arise due to use of the Ventralight hernia mesh.

Due to the lack of warning by manufacturers, he was allegedly forced to rely on manufacturer representations that the Ventralight hernia mesh was safe and effective.

The Bard Ventralight lawsuit aims to hold Bard accountable for releasing an allegedly defective product, failing to sufficiently test the product, and failing to warn consumers of the risks.

“Defendants provided incomplete, insufficient, and misleading information to physicians in order to increase the number of physicians using the Bard Ventralight ST for the purpose of increasing their sales,” the Bard Ventralight lawsuit argues. “By so doing, Defendants caused the dissemination of inadequate and misleading information to patients, including Plaintiffs.”

Herbert seeks compensatory damages, restitution, disgorgement, punitive damages, economic damages, court costs, and attorneys’ fees.

The Bard Ventralight Lawsuit is Case No. 2:18-cv-01552-EAS-KAJ and is part of the Bard Mesh MDL is In re: Davol Inc./C.R. Bard Inc. Polypropylene Hernia Mesh Products Liability Litigation, Case No. 2:18-md-2846, in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Ohio.