Judge Rejects Motions to Overturn Bard Hernia Mesh Lawsuit Verdict or Hold New Damages Trial

A federal judge has upheld a Bard hernia mesh lawsuit verdict issued in April despite motions from both defendants and plaintiffs calling for summary judgment or a new trial.

The U.S. District Judge presiding over all federal Bard hernia mesh lawsuits has rejected a motion filed by the manufacturer to overturn a $225,000 jury award returned earlier this year, and also denied a motion filed by the plaintiff for a new trial on damages.

In April, a lawsuit filed by Anthony Milanesi and his wife, Alica Morz de Milanesi, was the second Bard bellwether case to go before a jury in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Ohio, where nearly 17,000 similar lawsuits are being pursued by individuals who experienced problems with hernia mesh products sold by C.R. Bard in recent years, including Bard Ventralex, Bard Ventralight, Bard Perfix, Bard 3DMax and other mesh systems.

Each of the claims raise similar allegations that C.R. Bard distributed defective and unreasonably dangerous polypropylene mesh products for use during hernia repair, which are prone to fail within a few years, resulting in painful complications and often requiring additional surgery to revise or replace the hernia mesh.

Following a defense verdict returned in the first Bard hernia mesh trial held in August 2021, the Milanesi trial resulted in a $225,000 damage award when a jury found that the plaintiffs provided sufficient evidence to support their negligent design defects and loss of consortium claims.

While the outcome was not binding on other plaintiffs, the trial was closely watched to signal how juries may respond to certain evidence and testimony likely to be repeated throughout thousands of other claims, and facilitate hernia mesh settlement negotiations between the parties.

Shortly after the trial, C.R. Bard and Davol filed a motion for judgment as a matter of law, calling for U.S. District Judge Edmund Sargus, Jr., who is overseeing the consolidated cases in the Southern District of Ohio as part of a multidistrict litigation (MDL), to issue a judgment overturning the jury’s verdict on claims of negligent design and loss of consortium. The defendants claimed plaintiffs failed to prove causation and the necessary elements for a design defect claim.

A post trial motion was also filed by Milanesi, seeking a new trial on the amount of hernia mesh damages Bard should be required to pay, claiming that the jury was not properly instructed about calculating damages and reductions that can be applied.

In a dispositive motions order (PDF) issued on July 12, Judge Sargus rejected the defendant’s motion, noting that the court had already addressed many of the issues before trial and indicating manufacturers raised no new evidence or arguments that would change the court’s opinion.

The same day, Judge Sargus rejected the plaintiff’s require for a new trial in another dispositive motions order (PDF), noting that they failed to object to the jury instructions at the time it was provided by the Court, concluding that the call for a new damages trial was without merit.

Additional Bard Hernia Mesh Trials Expected

Over the coming months, Judge Sargus is expected to schedule two additional bellwether trials to help the parties gauge the relative strengths and weaknesses of their claims and promote settlement negotiations that may avoid the need for thousands of individual cases to be set for trial nationwide.

In addition to the federal lawsuits, Bard also faces thousands of similar hernia mesh lawsuits in coordinated litigation in Rhode Island state court, and indicated in its most recent quarterly report that there are more than 26,000 product liability lawsuits pending nationwide.

If the company fails to negotiate settlements to resolve the litigation, it is expected that the court will start requiring the parties to prepare large waves of claims for remand back to U.S. District Courts nationwide next year.

1 Comments

  • JohnsonJuly 18, 2022 at 10:04 pm

    It's very crazy and contradicting how the federal court allowed Bard to delay the first trial 3 different times but when other people try to delay, the make those people look bad. I honestly do not understand why they spent 5 years investigating a case that's already been settled in 2011!! It's very down right disrespectful to real victims of THEIR MISTAKES. The victims didn't ask for tainted reca[Show More]It's very crazy and contradicting how the federal court allowed Bard to delay the first trial 3 different times but when other people try to delay, the make those people look bad. I honestly do not understand why they spent 5 years investigating a case that's already been settled in 2011!! It's very down right disrespectful to real victims of THEIR MISTAKES. The victims didn't ask for tainted recalled mesh to be inside of them and I hate how nonchalant this certain jurisdiction is pretending its no big deal while the District of Rhode Island let it be known they weren't having the lies from Bard. This is the proof the money can buy many things even after you intentionally hurt thousands of people!. Honestly if Bard was a dog food company, we wouldn't hear the last of the complaints all over the news and other companies... This case though?? I RARELY hear anybody, let alone the plaintiffs of this case, EXPOSE THIS CORRUPT BRAND. I know God will defeat this whole thing but honestly, it is embarrassing how the FEDERAL COURT played dumb to the fact that this same company has already settled many other cases every year. Honestly, it is truly a disappointment from the people to the federal court. You lost my trust big time and I feel truly sorry for the victims who is literally in a damn hault for their own injuries while Bard delayed 2 different trials over 5 times and use the same argument in which cannot be done in the federal court.. Is judge sargus in on this too?? Because if not, the PSC needs to sue the southern district of Ohio for breaking federal law to cover this failed company's ass!!! Have a good day and seriously, someone needs to put this whole thing in public before they try to fake delay it until 2030!!

"*" indicates required fields

Share Your Comments

I authorize the above comments be posted on this page*

Have Your Comments Reviewed by a Lawyer

Provide additional contact information if you want an attorney to review your comments and contact you about a potential case. This information will not be published.

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

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

More Top Stories

Camp Lejeune Water Lawsuits Now Being Filed After President Biden Signed PACT Act
Camp Lejeune Water Lawsuits Now Being Filed After President Biden Signed PACT Act (Posted 3 days ago)

The President has signed the Camp Lejeune Justice Act into law as part of a larger package of veterans toxic chemical exposure health care benefits, which will allow those exposed to water contamination while living or serving on the base to file lawsuits against the federal government.