Verified against court and regulatory records · No upfront fees · Your information is never sold
Quick Eligibility Review
Answer one question at a time. This usually takes under 2 minutes.
Check your eligibility — free
Answer 2-3 quick questions to review your potential case.
Free · Confidential · About 2 minutes · A case specialist responds within 1 business day
Your answers are never sold or shared without your consent.
Davol and C.R. Bard — A History of Hernia Mesh Products
Davol Inc., headquartered in Warwick, Rhode Island, was acquired by C.R. Bard in 1989 and operates as a Bard subsidiary. C.R. Bard was itself acquired by Becton Dickinson in 2017. Despite corporate acquisitions, the Davol product line continued under the Davol and Bard names throughout the relevant litigation period. Davol manufactured dozens of hernia mesh variants over three decades, making it one of the dominant suppliers to general surgeons performing inguinal, ventral, umbilical, and incisional hernia repairs.
Key Davol/Bard Products in Litigation
The Composix Kugel Mesh Patch was the subject of a sweeping Class I recall by the FDA in 2005 through 2007. The recall was triggered by reports that the memory recoil ring embedded in the patch broke during or after implantation, causing intestinal perforations and fistula formation. Over 100,000 units were recalled. The Kugel litigation produced early significant verdicts that presaged the broader Davol/Bard hernia mesh litigation now consolidated in MDL 2846.
The 3DMax mesh is a three-dimensional preformed polypropylene device designed for laparoscopic total extraperitoneal (TEP) and transabdominal preperitoneal (TAPP) inguinal hernia repair. Its three-dimensional shape was designed to conform to the myopectineal orifice without fixation. However, plaintiffs allege that the device's polypropylene construction causes the same shrinkage, migration, and nerve entrapment complications as flat mesh designs, and that Bard overstated the benefits of the three-dimensional design while understating long-term complication rates.
The Ventralex ST Hernia Patch is an umbilical and small ventral hernia repair device with a strap and coil design. Plaintiffs have reported mesh shrinkage causing the device to curl and the coil structure to erode through abdominal tissue. The Composix E/X is a dual-layer composite mesh with a polypropylene outer face and an ePTFE visceral surface, designed for intraperitoneal placement. Plaintiffs allege the ePTFE layer delaminated from the polypropylene, exposing bowel to raw polypropylene and causing dense adhesions. Bard's Marlex mesh — pure polypropylene — is one of the oldest and most widely implanted products in the litigation, having been in use since the 1980s.
MDL 2846 — The Davol/Bard Federal MDL in S.D. Ohio
In April 2018 the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation consolidated all federal Davol/C.R. Bard hernia mesh cases before Judge Edmund A. Sargus Jr. in the Southern District of Ohio, Columbus Division. MDL 2846 has grown to over 20,000 cases and is administered through a Plaintiff Steering Committee structure. Discovery has included over 30 million pages of Bard corporate documents, revealing internal safety communications, adverse event reports, and marketing decisions. Bellwether trials have tested plaintiff theories and produced a range of outcomes that inform individual settlement negotiations.
How to Determine If You Have a Bard Mesh Claim
To evaluate a potential Davol/Bard mesh claim, the first step is identifying the exact product implanted. Request your operative report from the hospital or surgeon's office — it will name the mesh product, and most operative records also include an implant sticker with the manufacturer name, catalog number, and lot number. If your mesh is a Davol or Bard product and you experienced complications requiring medical treatment or revision surgery, contact a mass tort attorney for a free evaluation. MDL 2846 is active and accepting new claimants.
Key data
Data & Statistics
20,000+
U.S. District Court, S.D. Ohio
100,000+
FDA MedWatch recall database
30M+
MDL 2846 Case Management Orders
FAQ
Frequently Asked Questions
Dive deeper
Related Guides
- Hernia Mesh Infection ClaimsHernia mesh infection is a devastating complication because bacteria colonize the mesh material in treatment-resistant biofilms, usually requiring complete surgical removal. Mesh design characteristics — including pore size, material composition, and surface coatings — directly affect infection susceptibility, creating strong product liability theories.
- Hernia Mesh Settlements — What to ExpectHernia mesh mass tort settlements are structured as tiered grids based on injury severity, number of revision surgeries, and individual case factors. Understanding how settlement grids work and what factors increase your tier placement helps you evaluate your claim and avoid accepting inadequate offers.
- Hernia Mesh Evidence — Building Your ClaimA strong hernia mesh claim rests on three evidentiary pillars: confirmed product identification (which specific mesh was implanted), documented complications in medical records, and expert opinions causally linking the mesh to the injuries. Gathering and preserving this evidence from the moment complications are identified is the single most important step a potential claimant can take.
- Ethicon and Johnson and Johnson Hernia MeshEthicon, a Johnson and Johnson subsidiary, manufactured the Physiomesh Flexible Composite — voluntarily withdrawn from global markets in May 2016 after independent registry data revealed reoperation rates two to three times higher than comparator meshes. Ethicon Physiomesh and related product claims are consolidated in MDL 2753 in the District of New Jersey and MCL 616 in New Jersey Superior Court.
- Hernia Mesh Complications — What Can Go WrongDefective hernia mesh can cause a spectrum of complications from painful but treatable infections to catastrophic bowel perforation and sepsis. Understanding which complications are associated with mesh defects — versus routine surgical risks — is essential for evaluating whether a legal claim exists.
- Hernia Mesh Revision Surgery — What It InvolvesHernia mesh revision surgery — including adhesiolysis, partial mesh removal, and complete explantation — is a significantly more complex and dangerous operation than the original hernia repair. The risks, costs, and recovery demands of revision surgery are core elements of damages in hernia mesh litigation.
- Hernia Mesh Recall History — What the FDA FoundThe FDA has issued safety communications, ordered 522 post-market surveillance studies, and presided over multiple hernia mesh recalls. The regulatory history establishes that manufacturers had notice of mesh complications well before many patients were implanted — a critical element of failure-to-warn and design defect claims.
- Inguinal Hernia Mesh ClaimsInguinal hernia mesh repairs are the most common hernia surgery in the United States, accounting for approximately 800,000 procedures annually. The inguinal region's proximity to critical nerves and spermatic cord structures makes mesh complications in this location particularly likely to cause chronic, debilitating pain.
- Ventral Hernia Mesh ClaimsVentral hernias — including incisional hernias following prior abdominal surgeries — are typically repaired with large sheets of synthetic mesh placed intra-abdominally or in the retromuscular space. The large surface area of ventral mesh in contact with bowel creates significant risk of adhesion, migration, and bowel obstruction.
- Hernia Mesh MDL 2846 — What You Need to KnowMDL 2846 in the Southern District of Ohio is the federal coordination for all Davol/C.R. Bard hernia mesh cases. With over 20,000 cases and ongoing bellwether trials, understanding how the MDL works is essential for any potential claimant navigating this litigation.
- Hernia Mesh Chronic Pain — Inguinodynia ClaimsChronic groin pain (inguinodynia) following hernia mesh repair affects an estimated 10 to 30 percent of patients in some surgical registry studies and is the most common basis for hernia mesh legal claims. Nerve entrapment by mesh fixation devices and mesh contracture are the primary mechanisms. Chronic pain claims are legally cognizable even without revision surgery.
The full investigation