People's Justice

Case guide

Bard Hernia Mesh: Records and Case Questions

Check the exact Bard or Davol implant before asking about a claim. A court fund exists for agreed claims; it does not give every patient an award.

See If You Qualify

Free · No obligation · About 2 minutes

Updated Oct 4, 202617 sources

This may apply to you if

  • Identify the maker, model and date of your mesh implant.
  • Gather the diagnosed problem and treatment history for legal review.
  • Tell the lawyer about any prior case, offer, release or agreement.

What the public record says

These are cited sources. Their inclusion does not imply that they endorse People’s Justice or reviewed this page.

Michael J. Rosen · Department of Surgery, Center for Abdominal Core Health, Cleveland Clinic Foundation, Ohio · First-listed author of the randomized mesh trial

Finding: The 253-person trial found fewer returning hernias with synthetic mesh than with biologic mesh at two years in the studied repair. It found no significant difference in wound events requiring a procedure. The study does not describe every material, placement or rare severe complication.

Rosen original randomized hernia mesh trial, 2022 (opens in a new tab) · Jan 19, 2022 · Checked Oct 3, 2026

Edmund A. Sargus, Jr. · United States District Court for the Southern District of Ohio · United States District Judge

Finding: The March 3, 2026 Bard/Davol order adopts answers for cases with amended complaints while preserving defendants’ defenses. It is a procedural ruling, not a personal injury award or a finding about all mesh products.

Bard/Davol CMO9-A court procedure, March3,2026 (opens in a new tab) · Mar 3, 2026 · Checked Oct 3, 2026

The evidence and its limits

Cleveland Clinic Foundation and four other specialized US medical centers · JAMA Surgery · 2022

Biologic vs synthetic mesh in contaminated ventral hernia repair

Design:
Randomized controlled trial
Participants:
253 adults: 126 assigned synthetic mesh, 127 assigned biologic mesh
Finding:
Synthetic mesh reduced two-year hernia recurrence compared with biologic mesh. No significant difference was found in wound events requiring a procedure.
Main limitation
Two materials and one placement in specific repairs at specialist centers; two-year follow-up cannot describe all models or rare severe harms. Some authors disclosed industry relationships.

Read the source: Biologic vs synthetic mesh in contaminated ventral hernia repair (opens in a new tab) · Checked Oct 3, 2026

The short answer

How do I know which Bard mesh I received?
Ask the hospital for the maker, model and device ID. A brand name in an ad does not identify your implant. [7]
What does the Bard court fund establish?
The Ohio court created a fund in December 2024 for agreed Bard claims. It is not an offer to every mesh patient. [10]
Do the 2026 orders decide my injury claim?
They address case procedure, not proof that Bard caused your harm. Bring prior court papers to your own lawyer. [12]
What health risks and benefits should I discuss?
Mesh can lower the risk of a hernia returning. Pain and other problems can occur after repair with or without mesh. [6]

The process

What happens next

  1. 01

    You answer a few questions

    About two minutes. Nothing is sent until you agree on the last step and press submit.

  2. 02

    A lawyer looks at it

    A lawyer at the firm reads your answers and checks them against the current case criteria.

  3. 03

    The firm decides and gets in touch

    If the firm takes your case, you get the terms in writing to read before you sign. You can always say no.

How do I know which Bard mesh I received?

Ask the hospital for the maker, model and device ID. A brand name in an ad does not identify your implant.

FDA recommends keeping the maker, brand, material and unique device ID after surgery. Ask for the implant label and first repair report, plus any later care report. Keep those details with the date and place of surgery so a lawyer can check the actual product rather than guessing from the hernia site.

What does the Bard court fund establish?

The Ohio court created a fund in December 2024 for agreed Bard claims. It is not an offer to every mesh patient.

The December 16,2024 order covers Bard/Davol hernia products under agreed terms. It permits releases and payments to eligible settling claimants. Ask whether your case is included and request the terms that apply. The order does not publish a personal amount or guarantee that a new claim is accepted.

Do the 2026 orders decide my injury claim?

They address case procedure, not proof that Bard caused your harm. Bring prior court papers to your own lawyer.

The March 3 order adopts answers for changed complaints while preserving defenses and an exception for selected trial cases. The February 19 order concerns certain cases not filed again after dismissal. Neither is a personal medical finding or a universal filing date for someone who has never sued.

What health risks and benefits should I discuss?

Mesh can lower the risk of a hernia returning. Pain and other problems can occur after repair with or without mesh.

A randomized trial in 253 adults found fewer returning ventral hernias with synthetic than biologic mesh at two years. It studied two materials in specialist centers, not every Bard model or groin repair. The design limits and disclosed industry ties matter; FDA reports alone rarely establish a device caused a problem.

Does a recall or injury mean mesh must come out?

A recall does not always mean mesh needs to come out. Ask the surgeon what is best for your actual health.

FDA says a device recall may involve checks or corrections rather than removal. Medical care should not be chosen to meet an assumed legal rule. Tell the clinician what changed and keep the written plan. Ask the lawyer separately which records and harm it needs to assess.

What happens when I ask for a claim check?

Ask which product, law and prior agreement fit. Read fees and costs before agreeing to legal work.

Bring the implant, diagnosis and any earlier release, case number or fund letter. A civil complaint begins a court claim. A request for information does not establish an award. Ask about recovery shares, expenses after a loss and the next actual task instead of assuming the receiving firm takes every Bard matter.

Find out where you stand.

The review is free and private. Asking for it doesn’t commit you to anything.

Register your interest

Sources

  1. HHS: Your Medical RecordsHHS: Your Medical Records · regulator
  2. Federal courts: civil casesFederal courts: civil cases · court
  3. ABA: fees paid from a successful claimABA: fees paid from a successful claim
  4. SDNY: filing time limitsSDNY: filing time limits · court
  5. ABA Model Rule 1.5: feesABA Model Rule 1.5: fees
  6. FDA: surgical mesh used for hernia repairFDA: surgical mesh used for hernia repair · regulator
  7. FDA: questions and mesh identification after surgeryFDA: questions and mesh identification after surgery · regulator
  8. FDA: monitoring hernia mesh safetyFDA: monitoring hernia mesh safety · regulator
  9. FDA: what a device recall meansFDA: what a device recall means · regulator
  10. Bard/Davol CMO56 settlement fund, December16,2024Bard/Davol CMO56 settlement fund, December16,2024 · court
  11. Bard/Davol CMO54-A dismissal procedure, February19,2026Bard/Davol CMO54-A dismissal procedure, February19,2026 · court
  12. Bard/Davol CMO9-A court procedure, March3,2026Bard/Davol CMO9-A court procedure, March3,2026 · court
  13. Rosen original randomized hernia mesh trial, 2022Rosen original randomized hernia mesh trial, 2022 · study
  14. Becton Dickinson announced (Oct 2, 2024 press release) an agreement resolving the vast majority of Bard hernia mesh litigation — the federal MDL 2846 in S.D. Ohio and the Rhode Island consolidated docket, 21,000+ filed suits. Amount NOT publicly disclosed; BD said it sits within its existing product-litigation reserve and pays out over a multi-year structure, with individual plaintiff opt-ins required. (Media estimates of >$1B were not verifiable from a fetchable primary source, so no amount is reported.)aboutlawsuits.com · Oct 2, 2024
  15. Third MDL 2846 bellwether (Stinson v. Bard, PerFix Plug): jury found Bard liable on failure to warn, strict liability and negligence and awarded $500,000 in compensatory damages; no punitive damages. Stinson's mesh was implanted in 2015 and removed in 2017 after it 'curled up in a ball of scarred tissue.'aboutlawsuits.com · Nov 9, 2023
  16. Second MDL 2846 bellwether (Milanesi v. Bard, Ventralex): S.D. Ohio jury awarded $255,000 — $250,000 on negligent design defect plus $5,000 loss of consortium — while rejecting strict liability, failure-to-warn, misrepresentation and gross-misconduct claims. First plaintiff win in the MDL.aboutlawsuits.com · Apr 15, 2022
  17. First MDL 2846 bellwether (Johns v. Bard, Ventralight ST) ended in a complete defense verdict in the S.D. Ohio before Judge Sargus; the jury found for Bard on all counts, and Judge Sargus denied the plaintiff's new-trial motion on Dec 21, 2021. Fetched source confirms 'defense verdict in September 2021'; day-level date per trial coverage.aboutlawsuits.com · Sep 8, 2021

Checked against 13 primary sources by People's Justice editors · Updated

How we make money

People's Justice research team · Updated Oct 4, 2026