Hernia Mesh (Davol/C.R. Bard) Lawsuit in Ohio

Time limits apply in Ohio. Find out if you still qualify.

Free Case Review

Check your eligibility — free

Answer 2-3 quick questions to review your potential case.

People's Justice Research TeamUpdated June 11, 2026Fact-checked

Verified against court and regulatory records · No upfront fees · Your information is never sold

Statute of limitations — Ohio

Ohio Revised Code § 2305.10 imposes a 2-year statute of limitations for product liability claims, measured from the date of discovery of the injury (discovery rule applies). Ohio has a 10-year statute of repose for product liability running from the date of first sale of the product to the plaintiff (ORC § 2305.10(C)). Patients implanted with mesh products first sold before 2016 face potential repose exposure and should consult an attorney immediately.

2 years from discovery; 10-year statute of repose from product first sale

Filing venue

Where to File in Ohio

Ohio occupies a unique position in hernia mesh litigation: it is the home district of both major federal MDLs. Davol/CR Bard MDL 2846 and Covidien Parietex MDL 2511 are both pending before Judge Edmund Sargus in the Southern District of Ohio (Cincinnati). Ohio plaintiffs can file directly in S.D. Ohio without a tag-along transfer. Atrium C-QUR cases go to MDL 2753 in D.N.H., and Ethicon cases to the Atlantic County NJ Superior Court mass tort.

Ohio's statute of limitations for products liability is two years from the date of discovery under Ohio Rev. Code § 2305.10. Ohio applies the discovery rule: the cause of action accrues when the plaintiff discovers, or in the exercise of reasonable diligence should have discovered, the injury and its cause. Ohio courts have found that mesh injuries presenting as chronic pain, infection, or bowel obstruction years after implantation warrant delayed accrual, making the discovery rule especially important for Ohio mesh claimants.

As home to Judge Sargus and both major MDLs, Ohio holds particular strategic significance. Cincinnati, Columbus, Cleveland, and Dayton are major hernia surgical hubs. The Cleveland Clinic and Ohio State Wexner Medical Center are high-volume mesh implant centers. Ohio plaintiffs benefit from the convenience of direct filing in S.D. Ohio for Bard and Covidien cases, with no transfer delay. Bard Davol's Composix L/P, Ventralight, and PerFix products are the most-litigated Ohio-implanted devices.

Ohio's role as the MDL seat means local counsel have developed strong MDL practice infrastructure in Columbus and Cincinnati. For Ethicon/J&J claims, Ohio plaintiffs must file in Atlantic County NJ state court or have their state court cases transferred to the New Jersey mass tort. Judge Porto's docket accepts all Physiomesh and Prolene Hernia System claims regardless of the plaintiff's home state.

Ohio data

Exposure in Ohio

The Southern District of Ohio, Columbus Division, is the forum for MDL 2846 — Ohio plaintiffs have geographic proximity to MDL proceedings

Home of MDL 2846

Source: U.S. District Court, S.D. Ohio

Ohio's statute of repose bars claims more than 10 years after first product sale — a significant deadline for patients implanted with older Bard mesh products

10-year repose

Source: ORC § 2305.10(C)

Estimated annual hernia repair surgeries in Ohio

~30,000

Source: Ohio Department of Health hospital data

Medical resources

Clinics & Specialists in Ohio

Cleveland Clinic — Digestive Disease and Surgery Institute, Hernia Center

The Ohio State University Wexner Medical Center — Minimally Invasive Surgery Program

FAQ

Frequently Asked Questions

12 QUESTIONS

Hernia mesh litigation is a mass tort action against manufacturers of defective synthetic mesh implants used in hernia repair surgery. The primary defendants are Davol Inc. and C.R. Bard (now part of Becton Dickinson), Ethicon (a subsidiary of Johnson and Johnson), Atrium Medical, and Covidien (now part of Medtronic). These companies manufactured polypropylene and composite mesh devices that have been associated with serious complications including mesh migration, adhesion, infection, chronic pain, and bowel obstruction. Thousands of patients have filed claims in MDL 2846 in the Southern District of Ohio and in state court coordinations.

The most litigated hernia mesh products include Davol/Bard 3DMax, Ventralex ST, Composix E/X, Composix Kugel (recalled 2005-2007), and Marlex; Ethicon Physiomesh Flexible Composite (voluntarily withdrawn globally in 2016), Proceed, and Prolene Soft; Atrium C-QUR; and Covidien Parietex and Symbotex. If you are unsure which mesh was used in your surgery, the operative report from your hernia surgery will identify the product by name, manufacturer, and lot number. Request this record from your surgeon's office or the hospital's medical records department.

Common signs of hernia mesh failure include: persistent or worsening pain at the original surgical site, a bulge or lump near the incision suggesting hernia recurrence, redness, swelling, or drainage from the wound, fever and chills suggesting infection, nausea and bowel problems that may indicate adhesions, or groin pain radiating into the thigh or genitals. Many patients experience symptoms for months or years before receiving a diagnosis connecting their pain to the mesh. If you have any of these symptoms after hernia repair surgery, see your doctor and request imaging (CT scan or MRI) to evaluate the mesh. Then contact an attorney to evaluate your legal options.

Qualifying complications include mesh migration (the mesh has moved from its original position), surgical site infection that required prolonged antibiotics, hospitalization, or surgery, mesh adhesion to the bowel or other organs, hernia recurrence (the hernia came back despite the mesh), chronic pain syndrome or inguinodynia lasting more than 3 months, bowel obstruction or fistula formation, and any complication requiring revision surgery or mesh removal. The strongest cases involve documented complications in medical records and at least one revision or explantation surgery. However, patients who have not yet had revision surgery but have documented complications may also have valid claims.

Hernia mesh cases are consolidated in multidistrict litigations (MDLs), not class actions. The distinction matters: in a class action, one settlement covers all plaintiffs. In an MDL, each plaintiff's case retains its individual identity and is ultimately resolved based on that person's specific injuries. The primary hernia mesh MDL is MDL 2846 in the Southern District of Ohio before Judge Edmund Sargus, which consolidates Davol/C.R. Bard claims. Ethicon mesh cases are in MDL 2753 in New Jersey federal court. New Jersey state court Ethicon cases are in MCL 616. Your attorney will file in the appropriate court based on which mesh product you received.

Hernia mesh claims in MDL 2846 and related litigations typically take 3 to 6 years from filing to resolution due to the complexity of mass tort proceedings. However, this estimate depends heavily on where the litigation stands when you file and whether a global settlement is negotiated. Some cases settle individually before any global resolution. During this time, plaintiffs are not required to appear in court — attorneys handle the MDL proceedings while plaintiffs complete their Plaintiff Fact Sheet and participate in depositions if selected. Staying in active treatment and maintaining complete medical records throughout the litigation period strengthens your claim value.

Revision surgery is not an absolute requirement to file a claim, but it significantly strengthens the case and typically places it in a higher settlement tier. Patients who have had mesh-related complications documented in medical records — even without surgery — may still have viable claims, particularly if they suffer from chronic pain, infection, or other documented consequences. However, MDL case administrators and defendants generally assign higher settlement values to cases involving documented surgical intervention because the complication severity is objectively verified. If your physician has recommended revision surgery, that recommendation itself is important supporting documentation even if the surgery has not yet occurred.

Hernia mesh plaintiffs can recover: past medical expenses related to treating mesh complications and revision surgery; future medical costs for anticipated ongoing treatment; lost wages during recovery periods; diminished earning capacity if complications caused permanent disability; pain and suffering, including chronic pain syndrome; emotional distress and loss of enjoyment of life; and loss of consortium (impact on the marital relationship). In cases where the manufacturer's conduct was particularly egregious — such as documented concealment of known risks — punitive damages may be awarded at trial. Mass tort settlements typically compensate economic damages plus a pain and suffering component scaled to injury severity.

Most states impose a 2- to 3-year statute of limitations for product liability claims, but hernia mesh cases benefit from the discovery rule in most jurisdictions. Under the discovery rule, the clock starts when you knew or reasonably should have known that your injury was caused by a defective mesh product — not on the date of your original surgery. This means patients implanted years ago may still have timely claims if their complications are recent. However, some states have statutes of repose that impose an absolute outside limit. Do not assume your case is time-barred without consulting an attorney — the analysis is state-specific and fact-dependent.

You need records from multiple sources: (1) The hospital where your original hernia surgery was performed — request the operative report and any implant documentation (the implant sticker identifies the exact mesh product). (2) Your surgeon's office — for pre-operative notes and post-operative follow-up records. (3) Any hospital or facility where revision or explantation surgery was performed — request the operative report and pathology reports. (4) Any imaging center — for CT scans, MRIs, or ultrasound reports. You have a legal right to all your medical records.

Hernia mesh litigation typically requires several categories of expert witnesses: (1) A general surgeon or hernia specialist to opine that the mesh product caused the plaintiff's complications. (2) A biomaterials expert to explain why polypropylene mesh degrades, shrinks, or fails — and what the manufacturer knew about these properties. (3) A regulatory expert to address whether the FDA's 510(k) clearance process adequately vetted the device and whether the manufacturer provided accurate risk information. (4) An economist to calculate lost wages and future earning capacity if applicable. In MDL 2846, plaintiff leadership has developed a shared pool of general experts who testify in bellwether trials and whose opinions support individual case settlements.

As of 2026, there is no announced global settlement for MDL 2846 (Davol/C.R. Bard). Individual cases have resolved through negotiated settlements, particularly those selected for bellwether trials or cases in advanced stages of discovery. Ethicon Physiomesh cases have seen individual settlement activity. The absence of a global settlement means claimants are in an active litigation posture — which makes filing and completing the required Plaintiff Fact Sheet now critically important. When a global settlement is eventually negotiated, only plaintiffs with timely-filed, complete cases will be eligible to participate. Claimants who waited and missed the statute of limitations or failed to register in the MDL will be excluded.

Keep reading

← Back to Hernia Mesh (Davol/C.R. Bard) Lawsuit Overview Track the Hernia Mesh (Davol/C.R. Bard) litigation timeline →

Quick Eligibility Review

Check your eligibility — free

Where to File in Ohio

Exposure in Ohio

Clinics & Specialists in Ohio

Cleveland Clinic — Digestive Disease and Surgery Institute, Hernia Center

The Ohio State University Wexner Medical Center — Minimally Invasive Surgery Program

Frequently Asked Questions

What is hernia mesh litigation and which companies are being sued?

Which hernia mesh brands are involved in lawsuits?

How do I know if my hernia mesh has failed?

What complications qualify for a hernia mesh lawsuit?

Is there a class action or MDL for hernia mesh?

How long does a hernia mesh claim take to resolve?

Do I need to have had revision surgery to file a hernia mesh claim?

What damages can I recover in a hernia mesh lawsuit?

What is the statute of limitations for hernia mesh claims?

How do I get my hernia mesh medical records?

What expert witnesses are needed in a hernia mesh case?

Are there hernia mesh settlements available?