Hernia mesh failure was allegedly caused by a defective Bard product, according to a recent lawsuit filed by an injured consumer.

Plaintiff Arnold W. says he underwent hernia repair surgery in January 2012. His surgeon allegedly used a Bard Sheet Mesh to repair his left inguinal hernia, and Arnold says neither he nor his doctors were aware of the potential defects associated with the product.

In December 2013, hernia mesh failure prompted Arnold to undergo additional surgery to remove the allegedly defective mesh, the complaint says. During his surgery, Arnold’s surgeon reportedly noted that the external oblique muscle was “thickened and grossly involved in the scarring process” and that the mesh had densely adhered to the muscle.

As a result of his hernia mesh failure, Arnold has allegedly suffered, and will continue to suffer, from debilitating pain in addition to the financial burden of additional surgery.

Hernia mesh products are commonly used in hernia repair surgery to close up the weak spot causing a hernia. However, not all hernia mesh products are made equal, and some are associated with hernia mesh failure.

Defendants Davol Inc. and C.R. Bard Inc. manufacture a variety of hernia mesh products including the Bard Sheet Mesh. The Bard Sheet Mesh product is made from a polypropylene mesh, which has allegedly been shown to be dangerous and a poor material choice for mesh products.

Polypropylene mesh allegedly produces small interstices which allow bacteria to hide from the immune system responses designed to eliminate them. This can result in an increased risk of infection due to the housing of bacteria within the mesh.

Additionally, there is reportedly no such thing as pure polypropylene. According to the hernia mesh failure lawsuit, any polypropylene will also contain around 15 additional compounds which can be toxic to the tissues and enhance the inflammatory response of the body.

The hernia mesh failure lawsuit includes numerous reasons why polypropylene is not the idea mesh material. Arnold claims that the defendants knew or should have known about the dangers associated with polypropylene mesh, but still chose to use the material in their Bard Sheet Mesh.

The complaint argues that the defendants’ actions were negligent and irresponsible and directly caused Arnold to suffer from hernia mesh failure and the resulting injuries.

“Defendants marketed the Bard Sheet Mesh to the medical community and to patients as safe, effective, reliable, medical devices for the treatment of hernia repair, and as safer and more effective as compared to the traditional products and procedures for treatment, and other competing mesh products,” states the hernia mesh failure lawsuit.

Arnold accuses the defendants of manufacturing defect, design defect, failure to warn, negligence, breach of warranties, negligent infliction of emotional distress, fraudulent concealment, negligent misrepresentation, and loss of consortium.

The hernia mesh failure lawsuit seeks compensatory and punitive damages over $75,000 as compensation for pain and suffering, emotional distress, lost wages, lost earning capacity, and diminished quality of life. The suit also seeks economic damages, restitution, disgorgement, court costs, and attorneys’ fees.

The Hernia Mesh Failure Lawsuit is Case No. 1:18-cv-00603-WES-LDA in the U.S. District Court for the District of Rhode Island.