Skip to main content


Medical Device Lawyer investigates defective hernia mesh products for injured plaintiffs nationwide
Nationwide Success

3D Max Mesh Injury Lawsuits

investigating hernia mesh injuries & complications
Thank you for considering The Lyon Firm. At this time, we are not accepting plaintiffs related to this specific consumer issue. However, if you would like to be contacted in the future, please complete the contact form. By completing the form you will be contacted if the Firm begins accepting new cases on this matter, and you will also be included in firm news alerts related to important consumer safety and privacy issues to help keep you informed about related issues.

Hernia repair is a very common surgery performed in the United States, yet many patients end up reporting serious post-op complications from implanted mesh devices. Patients with Bard’s 3D Max mesh device, and other mesh implants include nerve damage, infections, bowel obstruction, hernia recurrence, and a resulting revision surgery.

Doctors have utilized and touted surgical hernia mesh devices for years. Most of the available devices are made with a synthetic material called polypropylene, a material that has led to thousands of lawsuits against Bard and other medical mesh manufacturers due to complications and subsequent injury.

C.R. Bard and Davol have manufactured the 3D Max Mesh device—used for inguinal hernia repair—since 2007. There has been no device recall related to the 3DMax hernia mesh, but many injuries and lawsuits pending. Lawyers allege the mesh is defective, unreasonably dangerous and argue the companies did not properly warn recipients of the health risks involved with implantation.

3DMax hernia mesh is now linked to chronic pelvic pain, sexual dysfunction, infection and other adverse injury reports. Many people surgically implanted with the Bard 3DMax mesh device are seeking compensation through litigation across the United States.

Joe Lyon is a highly-rated Ohio product liability lawyer representing plaintiffs nationwide in a wide variety of defective medical device claims. 

Common Injuries Associated with 3D Max Mesh

Injuries and complications related to defective mesh devices may not present until years after the mesh was implanted. The U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has received various reports of complications that include:

  • Abdominal pain
  • Infection
  • Perforation of organs
  • Adhesion—tissue sticking together
  • Bowel Obstruction—blockage of the intestine
  • Fluid Build-up (abscess)
  • Leaking (fistula) of fluids
  • Device migration
  • Mesh shrinkage
  • Hernia Recurrence
  • Revision surgery

Examples of Adverse Event Reports include:

  • Complaints of severe pain and swelling in post-op period
  • Hernia mesh folded and moved from original implant location
  • Patient presented with shortness of breath, diagnosed with bacterial endocarditis
  • Severe pelvic pain
  • Abdominal and testicular pain
  • Significant urinary tract irritability
  • Inflammation and infectious prostate symptoms


Please complete the form below for a FREE consultation.

  • This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.


Joseph Lyon has 17 years of experience representing individuals in complex litigation matters. He has represented individuals in every state against many of the largest companies in the world.

The Firm focuses on single-event civil cases and class actions involving corporate neglect & fraud, toxic exposure, product defects & recalls, medical malpractice, and invasion of privacy.


The Firm offers contingency fees, advancing all costs of the litigation, and accepting the full financial risk, allowing our clients full access to the legal system while reducing the financial stress while they focus on their healthcare and financial needs.

photo of attorney Joe Lyon reviewing 3d max mesh injury
A Voice for Those who have suffered

Why are these cases important?

Defective medical device litigation helps to improve patient safety and holds medical device companies accountable when defective products injure plaintiffs and clients.


  • This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.

Hernia Mesh Litigation

Can I file a hernia mesh lawsuit?

Attorneys claim several hernia mesh devices were not properly tested before they were marketed and distributed as safe medical instruments.

The companies currently face thousands of pending hernia mesh injury lawsuits. If you have had surgery to treat a hernia using a device and you experience any signs or symptoms of recurrence of the hernia, please consult with a medical and legal expert. The Lyon Firm has experience litigating cases against medical device manufacturers.

Attorneys contend that some hernia mesh devices are not properly tested before they are distributed to the public as safe products. Device companies like Gore, Aspide, Ethicon, Bard, Covidien and Atrium have settled hundreds of lawsuits and currently face countless more injury claims.

If you are unsure about the mesh manufacturer and product used in your surgery and have questions about your hernia repair, contact your Ohio surgeon to obtain medical records. Contact a Cincinnati hernia mesh lawyer to discuss potential hernia mesh injury lawsuits and settlement.

What hernia mesh products have allegedly caused injury?
  • Gore DualMesh
  • Aspide Surgimesh
  • Ethicon
  • Physiomesh
  • Proceed
  • Prolene
  • Covidien 
  • Parietex
  • Parietene
  • Permacol
  • Surgipro
  • Atrium
  • C-Qur
  • ProLoop
  • Bard/ Davol
  • Visilex
  • Composix
  • Marlex
  • Ventralight
  • Spermatex
  • 3D Max
  • Sepramesh
  • PerFix Plug
  • Ventralex
  • Kugel
How common is hernia recurrence?

Regardless of treatment, hernias have a high rate of recurrence, and surgeons often use surgical mesh to strengthen the hernia repair recurrence rate. The use of meshes is thought to reduce dramatically the incidence of hernia recurrence.

However, up to 50 percent of hernias may reoccur with an implanted device. This is commonly due to inadequate fixation during the original operation or shrinkage of the mesh. Light-weight meshes may have a higher risk due to their increased flexibility and movement.

Two-thirds of recurrences occur after three years. It is not clear if the type of mesh used has any effect on durability. All mesh products appear equally limited in effectiveness.

How is a Medical Device Defined as Defective?

Ohio Definition of Defective

Under Ohio law, a medical device is  defective if it is unreasonably dangerous for its intended use. A legal cause of action can be based on several types of medical device product defects. Most jurisdictions a version of one or more of these cause of actions. 

(1)  Manufacturing/ Construction Defect of the medical device:

(2) Defective design and/or formulation of the medical device:

(3) Failure to warn or inadequate warning or instruction associated with the medical device:

(4) Misrepresentation on the Safety or Efficacy of the Medical Device:

(5) Fraud Related to the Safety or Efficacy of the Medical Device

(6) Negligent Distribution or Testing of the Medical Device



Learn about Medical Device Approval Processes

Our Victories

The Lyon Firm aggressively, professionally, and passionately advocates for injured individuals and families against companies due to a defective product or recalled product to obtain just compensation under the law.