Skip to main content


Consumer Safety Lawyer investigates defective hernia mesh devices for injured plaintiffs nationwide
Nationwide Success

Ventralight Hernia Mesh Lawsuits

reviewing mesh injury & 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.

According to attorneys involved in handling recent hernia mesh injury and Ventralight lawsuit settlements, CR Bard and other medical device makers ignored available evidence and failed to undergo proper clinical testing in order to release unsafe hernia mesh products.

The Bard Ventralight ST hernia mesh product is a polypropylene mesh designed for use in hernia repair surgery. But the material used, polypropylene, has been known to expand and shrink after implantation, leading to infection, irritation, tissue damage and a dangerous foreign body response.

Bacteria can adhere to the mesh implant, compromising internal organs and delicate tissue. Polypropylene also tends to break down in the body over time, leading to patient complications, which may include:

  • Bowel Obstruction
  • Infection
  • Adhesion
  • Chronic pain
  • Hernia recurrence
  • Allergic reaction
  • Fluid buildup
  • Hematomas
  • Fistula formation
  • Tissue damage
  • Mesh erosion
  • Granuloma
  • Bowel Perforation
  • Need for revision surgery

Ventralight Complications

Patient complaints and adverse medical reports have shown that Ventralight mesh and other polypropylene mesh products present a health risk to consumers.

Yet, medical device manufacturers elected to release unsafe products at a huge consumer cost. Johnson & Johnson, Ethicon, Atrium, Aspide and Davol Bard have released hernia mesh products that have caused injuries and led to hernia mesh defect lawsuits.

The prevailing argument in the Ventralight lawsuit alleges that the product’s ST coating contributes to potential inflammatory reactions, infection and other side effects. Early signs of mesh implant failure include pain, discomfort, delay in healing, and heat radiating from the surgical site. Hernia mesh failure leads to complications and painful revision surgery.

Attorneys contend that there is scientific evidence that Bard should have known of that demonstrates their Ventralight ST mesh is incompatible with human tissue. Meanwhile, the company has made huge sums of money while litigation mounts.

Hernia mesh lawyers have file lawsuits based on claims of design defects, manufacturing defects, failure to warn, company negligence, breach of warranty, and violations of consumer protection laws.

Joe Lyon is a highly-rated Cincinnati, Ohio medical device attorney and hernia mesh injury lawyer representing plaintiffs nationwide in a wide variety of medical device recall lawsuits and and product liability cases.

Ventralight Mesh Lawsuits

Bard and other mesh manufacturers failed to warn consumers and surgeons of patient health risks. As a result, thousands of injured mesh implant patients are coming forward to file lawsuits against negligent medical device companies.

The use of hernia mesh implants can improve hernia patient outcomes. There is a known reduced rate of hernia recurrence, and many situations require the use of surgical mesh for hernia repair.

But when a defective mesh product is used, serious health risks endanger a patient.


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 Ventralight mesh
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.

Questions about Ventralight Mesh Litigation

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 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


Why should I hire The Lyon Firm?

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. 


Learn about Medical Device Approval Processes