A Utah man recently filed a new Bard hernia mesh lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Ohio. It joins the other federally-filed lawsuits centralized there in August 2018.
The plaintiff claims that after he was implanted with the Ventralex mesh, he suffered significant injuries, including pain and suffering, emotional distress, lost wages and earning capacity, and diminished quality of life.
Plaintiff Undergoes Surgery with Ventralex Mesh to Repair Incarcerated Hernia
According to his complaint, the plaintiff underwent surgery to repair an incarcerated hernia on July 31, 2011. This is a type of hernia that has become “trapped,” to where it cannot be easily returned to its original place.
A hernia is a bulge of muscle and tissue protruding through a weak spot in the surrounding muscle or connective tissue. It usually occurs in the groin, belly button, upper stomach, or through a former surgical incision.
If the hernia cannot be pushed back into place, it is said to be incarcerated. This is usually a dangerous situation, as the contents inside the hernia can become swollen and the blood vessels blocked. If that happens, the hernia is also said to be “strangulated,” meaning it no longer has access to blood supply. Without immediate treatment, the tissues inside the hernia may die, leading to gangrene and even death.
The plaintiff’s hernia was incarcerated when he went through surgery at the Jordan Valley Medical Center in West Jordan, Utah. During this surgery, the surgeon implanted the Ventralex mesh.
Bard Hernia Mesh Allegedly Defective
The Bard Ventralex hernia mesh is made of polypropylene and polytetrafluoroethylene (ePTFE), both of which are supposed to help promote incorporation of the mesh into the body and prevent the formation of adhesions to other tissues and organs. The patch itself is made to lend support to the weakened muscles and tissues, providing for a long-term repair of the hernia.
The mesh did not work as expected for the plaintiff. On February 21, 2018, he had to go through a second surgery because the mesh had failed. He claims that the product did not work as designed and that instead, it was highly prone to infection and extremely difficult to remove.
He adds that the materials made the mesh prone to excessive shrinkage, since the ePTFE shrinks faster than polypropylene, resulting in the mesh curling after implantation. The product contains a permanent memory recoil ring (PET ring) that is prone to breaking once that shrinkage begins. The defendants conducted a silent recall of this ring in 2013, removing it from the Ventralex design, but never notified doctors or patients of the danger.
The plaintiff states that the medical community was concerned for decades about foreign objects, such as mesh, being placed too close to the bowel or other organs, since they could cause inflammation and the formation of dense adhesions to the device. Yet the defendants marketed their Ventralex mesh to be placed next to the bowel.
The plaintiff brings counts of manufacturing and design defect, failure to warn, negligence, breach of warranties, violation of consumer protection laws, gross negligence, negligent infliction of emotional distress, fraudulent concealment, and negligent misrepresentation.