Following years of hernia mesh-related complications and subsequent litigation, C.R. Bard is facing numerous lawsuits regarding hernia mesh models, including the Ventralex Patch, which has allegedly caused injuries and revision surgery in several patients in the U.S.
Adverse events reported to the FDA over the Ventralex include severe pain, adhesions, and bowel obstruction. Attorneys argue that the company did not properly put the device through rigorous testing before releasing it on the market, leading to preventable injuries nationwide.
C.R. Bard mesh devices have been recalled in recent years, including the Ventralex, 3D Max, Sepramesh, Composix, Perfix Plug, Ventralight, Marlex, Visilex and Kugel patch models.
Several plaintiffs claim they have suffered injuries after being implanted with Bard Ventralex hernia mesh devices, causing various internal injuries and serious pain.
Joe Lyon is a highly-rated Ohio product liability lawyer representing plaintiffs nationwide in a wide variety of medical device injury claims against Bard, Gore, Aspire, Atrium, Ethicon and Covidien.
The Bard Ventralex hernia mesh is a patch device designed to repair abdominal hernias, containing two layers of polypropylene mesh that is meant to fully absorb into the body after insertion.
The FDA first approved the Bard Ventralex in 2002, but was able to skip clinical trials for approval and was sent through the FDA’s 510(k) program because Bard showed the new mesh product was significantly similar to other mesh devices already on the market.
The Ventralex is reportedly very similar to Bard’s Kugel Mesh, which was actually recalled in 2005 when doctors and patients found that the “memory recoil ring” was rupturing and causing bowel perforations and other complications.
Recent studies have indicated similar problems with the Ventralex hernia mesh device. Allegations against C.R. Bard note complications following hernia repair that were caused by the unreasonably dangerous design of the Bard Ventralex patch. Attorneys and plaintiffs argue the patch is incompatible with human tissue, and must be removed in many cases.
Lawyers in the cases say the device manufacturer failed to perform proper testing and measure the risks associated with the Bard Ventralex patch. As a result, Bard has faced charges of negligence, design defect, manufacturing defect, failure to warn, and breaches of warranty.
Hernia mesh and patches are relatively common devices that may alleviate persistent pain, discomfort and other symptoms of a hernia. However, patients who have been implanted with Bard mesh devices have reported severe complications, including:
A number of settlements have been reached over hernia mesh device injury lawsuits. If you have had surgery to treat a hernia using a patch or mesh device and show signs or symptoms of recurrence or complications, contact medical and legal professionals. The Lyon Firm has experience litigating cases against Bard and other mesh device manufacturers.
ABOUT THE LYON FIRM
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.
NO COST UNLESS WE WIN
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.
Defective medical device litigation helps to improve patient safety and holds medical device companies accountable when defective products injure plaintiffs and clients.
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.
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.
Repair of hernias are done by either suture repair or prosthetic mesh repair. The latter is associated with a lower recurrence rate but a higher incidence of complications. The most serious complication is the development of fistula.
Fistula is a late complication of prosthetic mesh repair and is usually due to chronic erosion of bowel by mesh placed in direct contact with intestinal loops both in open and laparoscopic repairs. Symptoms of fistulas may include the following:
Hernia mesh adhesions are scar tissue resulting from hernia mesh operations and the healing process. Following hernia repair surgeries, adhesions may form in the abdomen or peritoneum. The mesh repairs usually heal quickly but when adhesions form, organs connected by the scar tissue may not function properly.
The popularity of hernia mesh operations has led to increasing concern regarding mesh-related adhesions. Adhesions result from the fibrin exudates that follow any kind of trauma.
These exudates form temporary adhesions until the fibrinolytic system absorbs the fibrin. Absorption is delayed in the presence of inflammation or foreign bodies such as mesh devices. In these situations, they develop into tissue adhesions.
All mesh implants produce adhesions, though their extent varies. Abdominal adhesions are a common complication, occurring in a majority of people who undergo abdominal or pelvic surgery. Adhesions cause the majority of small bowel obstructions in adults, and are believed to contribute to the development of chronic pelvic pain.
X-rays do not reveal potential mesh issues or diagnose the presence of adhesions. An additional surgery is usually needed to diagnose or treat hernia mesh adhesions. However, revision surgeries carry risks and can lead to further health problems, including infection, bowel blockage, bowel perforation and chronic pain.
Adhesions may begin forming long before they are noticed by patients or doctors. Depending on the location, adhesions from defective hernia mesh devices may cause pain and affect the bowel in different ways. Even removing a defective hernia mesh product may not completely solve all health issues.
Symptoms of adhesion and hernia mesh injury may include:
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
Our Firm will help you find the answers. The Firm has the experience, resources and dedication to take on difficult and emotional cases and help our clients obtain the justice for the wrong they have suffered.
Experience: Joe Lyon is an experienced Cincinnati Defective Device Lawyer. The Lyon Firm has 17 years of experience and success representing individuals and plaintiffs in all fifty states, and in a variety of complex civil litigation matters. Defective device lawsuits can be complex and require industry experts to determine the root cause of an accident or injury. Mr. Lyon has worked with experts nationwide to assist individuals understand why an injury occurred and what can be done to improve their lives in the future. Some cases may go to a jury trial, though many others can be settled out of court.
Resources/Dedication: Mr. Lyon has worked with experts in the fields of accident reconstruction, biomechanics, epidemiology, metallurgy, pharmacology, toxicology, human factors, workplace safety, life care planning, economics, and virtually every medical discipline in successfully representing Plaintiffs across numerous areas of law. The Lyon Firm is dedicated to building the strongest cases possible for clients and their critical interests.
Results: Mr. Lyon has obtained numerous seven and six figure results in medical device cases. He has litigated cases successfully against some of the largest companies in the world including: Johnson & Johnson, Biomet, Ethicon, Stryker, Coloplast, Smith & Nephew, American Medical Systems, Boston Scientific, Medtronic, Guidant, Bard, & Bayer.
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.
Nationwide Consolidation in U.S. District Court, Northern District of Ohio. The Depuy ASR Hip design was plagued with problems related to premature loosening and metallosis, caused by chromium and cobalt entering the blood stream. The resulting injuries were a result of the metal-on-metal friction inherent with the design of the product. Depuy recalled the ASR and entered into a global settlement valued at $2.5 Billion to cover an estimated 8,000 patients. The Lyon Firm represented several clients in the original settlement and continues to be active in this litigation. The settlement funds provided compensation for the revision surgeries, including compensating for medical costs, lost wages, and pain and suffering.
Nationwide Consolidation in U.S District Court, Northern District of Indiana. Similar to the Depuy ASR, the Biomet metal-on-metal hip design allegedly contributed to premature hip failures and metallosis due to the metal friction. Biomet entered into a global settlement valued at $56 million to cover a few thousand claims. The Lyon Firm represented several plaintiffs in the original settlement and continues to be active in this litigation.