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

Time limits apply in Pennsylvania. 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 — Pennsylvania

Pennsylvania's 2-year statute of limitations applies to personal injury and product liability claims under 42 Pa. C.S. § 5524. The discovery rule applies. Pennsylvania has no statute of repose, making it favorable for patients with older implants. Philadelphia's Court of Common Pleas has historically produced plaintiff-favorable outcomes in mass tort cases and has been a preferred venue for Pennsylvania hernia mesh claimants pursuing state court options.

2 years from discovery — no statute of repose

Filing venue

Where to File in Pennsylvania

Pennsylvania hernia mesh plaintiffs fall under the same multi-MDL structure: Davol/CR Bard MDL 2846 (S.D. Ohio, Judge Sargus) for Bard products; Covidien Parietex MDL 2511 (S.D. Ohio) for Medtronic/Covidien products; Atrium C-QUR MDL 2753 (D.N.H.); and the Atlantic County NJ Superior Court mass tort for Ethicon/J&J Physiomesh and Prolene claims before Judge Porto. Pennsylvania's Eastern and Western Districts serve as common originating venues before tag-along transfer to MDL.

Pennsylvania has a two-year statute of limitations for products liability under 42 Pa. C.S. § 5524. The discovery rule is well-established: the limitations period begins when the plaintiff knows or has reason to know of the injury and its relationship to the defendant's product. Pennsylvania courts have held that mesh complications that become symptomatic years after implantation — including bowel obstruction, erosion, and chronic neuropathic pain — support delayed discovery accrual.

Pennsylvania hosts significant hernia mesh implant activity through the University of Pennsylvania Health System, Jefferson Health, UPMC, and Geisinger. Philadelphia and Pittsburgh are the primary surgical hubs. Bard Davol's PerFix and Ventralex products and Covidien Parietex Composite mesh dominate defendant product distribution. Pennsylvania also has a history of early Atrium C-QUR claims from New Hampshire-adjacent Northeast markets.

Pennsylvania's proximity to Atlantic County, NJ gives Pennsylvania Ethicon plaintiffs a geographic advantage in the state court mass tort. The Atlantic County consolidation for J&J/Ethicon cases under Judge Porto is mandatory for plaintiffs pursuing J&J's New Jersey-registered corporate entity, and Pennsylvania counsel frequently practice in that forum via pro hac vice.

Pennsylvania data

Exposure in Pennsylvania

Philadelphia Court of Common Pleas is a historically plaintiff-favorable mass tort venue — some Pennsylvania hernia mesh claimants file state court actions there

Philadelphia venue

Source: Pennsylvania mass tort litigation practice

Pennsylvania has no statute of repose for product liability — favorable for patients with older mesh implants

No repose

Source: Pennsylvania products liability case law

Estimated annual hernia repair surgeries in Pennsylvania

~40,000

Source: Pennsylvania Health Care Cost Containment Council

Medical resources

Clinics & Specialists in Pennsylvania

Penn Medicine — Penn Comprehensive Hernia Program

UPMC — General Surgery, Minimally Invasive Hernia 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 Pennsylvania

Exposure in Pennsylvania

Clinics & Specialists in Pennsylvania

Penn Medicine — Penn Comprehensive Hernia Program

UPMC — General Surgery, Minimally Invasive Hernia 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?