A recent ventral hernia mesh lawsuit claims that several manufacturing companies released defective hernia repair products.

Plaintiff Barbara P. reportedly underwent hernia repair surgery in October 2014. Her surgeon allegedly used a Bard Sheet Mesh and Ethicon Proceed mesh to repair the hernia. After her surgery, Barbara allegedly started to experience complications associated with the mesh products.

In February 2015, the complications reportedly prompted Barbara to undergo additional surgery. Her surgeon reportedly entered the abdominal cavity and noted “scar tissue and a fistula tract, which extended down into the mesh”. The mesh was reportedly removed during surgery.

Barbara claims that defects associated with the two mesh products caused her adverse reaction and subsequent injuries.

Hernias occur when an organ, intestine, or fatty tissue squeezes out of a hole or weakness in the muscle. This most commonly happens in the abdominal wall. Types of hernia include inguinal (inner groin), femoral (outer groin/upper thigh), incisional (through a scar in abdomen), ventral (general abdominal wall), umbilical (belly button), and hiatal (inside abdomen along upper stomach).

According to the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA), some hernias may require surgical repair. Surgery may not be necessary in all cases, but hernias are often repaired using a hernia mesh product. However, these products may lead to complications.

“Based on FDA’s analysis of medical device adverse event reports and of peer-reviewed, scientific literature, the most common adverse events for all surgical repair of hernias—with or without mesh—are pain, infection, hernia recurrence, scar-like tissue that sticks tissues together (adhesion), blockage of the large or small intestine (obstruction), bleeding, abnormal connection between organs, vessels, or intestines (fistula), fluid build-up at the surgical site (seroma), and a hole in neighboring tissues or organs (perforation),” the FDA states.

Issues with Mesh

Both the Bard Sheet mesh and Ethicon Proceed mesh reportedly use polypropylene mesh as the mesh base. However, Barbara’s complaint alleges that polypropylene is allegedly not a good material choice for hernia repair mesh because it is not biologically inert in the body.

The material allegedly also expands, shrinks, and causes injury when implanted in the human body.

The medical community is reportedly aware of the risks associated with polypropylene mesh products and significant scientific literature reportedly backs the claims. Despite this, Bard and Ethicon allegedly chose to use the unsafe material.

“Defendants had the requisite knowledge, skill and expertise to know that implanted devices, such as polypropylene mesh, must be chemically inert, non-carcinogenic, and able to withstand mechanical stress. Implanted devices, such as polypropylene mesh, must also not be physically modified by tissue fluids, not allow tissue infiltration, not incite an inflammatory or foreign body cell reaction, and not produce allergic reactions,” the ventral hernia mesh lawsuit claims.

Barbara, like many other plaintiffs in the growing hernia mesh MDL, accuses the companies of negligence that allegedly resulted in her injuries. She seeks compensatory damages, restitution, disgorgement, punitive damages, economic damages, prejudgment interest, court costs, and attorneys’ fees.

The Ventral Hernia Mesh Lawsuit is Case No. 1:19-cv-00090-WES-LDA in the U.S. District Court for the District of Rhode Island.