Bard Ventralight Hernia Patch Lawsuit Alleges Biological Incompatibility with Human Tissue

Irvin Jackson

Add Your Comments

According to allegations raised in product liability lawsuit filed last week by a North Carolina man, Bard Ventralight ST Hernia Patch products are made with materials that are biologically incompatible with human tissue, causing severe pain and other complications following hernia repair surgery. 

The complaint (PDF) was filed by Julio Nunez in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey on September 14, naming C.R. Bard and it’s Bard Davol, Inc. subsidiary as defendants.

Nunez indicates that Bard Ventralight ST mesh was implanted in his body during a ventral hernia repair in August 2014. However, shortly after the procedure, he began experiencing severe abdominal pain, nausea, and fatigue.

Hernia Mesh Lawsuits

Did you or a loved one receive a hernia mesh?

Hernia mesh lawsuits are being filed against Bard, Atrium, Covidien and several other hernia mesh manufacturers over mesh failures resulting in injuries and additional surgery.

Learn More
SEE IF YOU QUALIFY FOR COMPENSATION
Is there a hernia mesh lawsuit? Find out if you qualify for a hernia mesh lawsuit settlement payout.
Is there a hernia mesh lawsuit? Find out if you qualify for a hernia mesh lawsuit settlement payout.

Hernia Mesh Lawsuits

Did you or a loved one receive a hernia mesh?

Hernia mesh lawsuits are being filed against Bard, Atrium, Covidien and several other hernia mesh manufacturers over mesh failures resulting in injuries and additional surgery.

Learn More
SEE IF YOU QUALIFY FOR COMPENSATION

Less than a month after receiving the hernia patch, Nunez had to undergo additional surgery to drain an abdominal wall abscess and to have the Ventralight hernia mesh removed. He also had to undergo placement of a wound VAC.

Bard Ventralight is a monofilament lightweight polypropylene mesh, with an absorbable hydrogel barrier. However, the lawsuit indicates that the design was not properly tested for compatibility with humans before it was marketed and distributed to hospitals and surgeons

“The [Bard Ventralight ST hernia patch] was made of materials which are biologically incompatible with human tissue and react negatively and sometimes dangerously with a large number of those on who it is used,” Nunez’s lawsuit states. “Defendant knew or should have known that their Product was unreasonably harmful.”

Nunez’s lawsuit presents claims for negligence, design defect, manufacturing defect, failure to warn, breach of warranty, and violation of consumer protection laws.

The case joins a growing number of hernia mesh lawsuits continue to be filed against manufacturers of various different products introduced in recent years, which have since been found to be the cause of painful and debilitating injuries nationwide.

While most of the cases filed to date have involved Ethicon Physiomesh lawsuits and Atrium C-Qur mesh lawsuits, as lawyers continue to review and evaluate cases for individuals who experienced problems in recent years, additional allegedly defective products are being identified, and the scope of the hernia mesh litigation continues to widen.

Irvin Jackson
Written by: Irvin Jackson

Senior Legal Journalist & Contributing Editor

Irvin Jackson is a senior investigative reporter at AboutLawsuits.com with more than 30 years of experience covering mass tort litigation, environmental policy, and consumer safety. He previously served as Associate Editor at Inside the EPA and contributes original reporting on product liability lawsuits, regulatory failures, and nationwide litigation trends.

Tags: Bard, C. R. Bard, Hernia, Hernia Mesh

More Hernia Mesh Lawsuit Stories

1 Comments

Eric
I just received the same kind of mesh in a surgery on 9/10/18, (without even knowing a mesh would be used on me), it’s a 4″ x 6″ piece of Bard Ventralight ST mesh, and as soon as I woke up from the operation, I KNEW something was drastically wrong. “Biologically Incompatible with Human Tissue” makes complete sense to me, (unfortunately) It’s 12/7/18 now, and I’m planning on having the mesh removed and undergoing abdominal wall reconstructive surgery asap, but that’s not until the end of January now. Yesterday, I confronted the surgeon about all of this (again), and he denied any knowledge of issues / lawsuits with this specific mesh (or other meshes). The surgeon also claims he went over details of the operation with me, but I would have never done it. If I had a small problem A (a tiny hernia), why use a huge problem B (this mesh) to fix it? It makes no sense whatsoever. Anyway, I’m in extreme pain 90% of each day, can’t seem to digest food, had a seroma, my stomach is mis shaped now, and I can’t bend down easily. Prior to this surgery, I was in great shape, as I’m a PE Teacher.. Now, I am having a lot of difficulty working and I seem to be constantly fighting massive inflamation in my stomach cavity. I’m interested in hearing from any lawyers to represent me, who will “go the distance” to try and prevent Bard from doing this to people in the future. Thanks and I’m so sorry we are all going through this.. Eric

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

Share Your Comments

This field is hidden when viewing the form
I authorize the above comments be posted on this page
Post Comment
Weekly Digest Opt-In

Want your comments reviewed by a lawyer?

To have an attorney review your comments and contact you about a potential case, provide your contact information below. This will not be published.

NOTE: Providing information for review by an attorney does not form an attorney-client relationship.

MORE TOP STORIES

Bard PowerPort Infection Lawsuit Claims Catheter Fractures Harbored Bacteria
An Illinois man’s lawsuit accuses C.R. Bard of using a defective material in its PowerPort port catheter’s construction, causing him to suffer an infection and device failure.
Abbott Sales Reps Kept Trying to Reprogram Failed SCS Implant Lawsuit
An Abbott SCS Implant lawsuit claims the manufacturers’ sales representatives potentially delayed removal of a failed device due to attempts to try to reprogram it.