Skip Navigation

Covidien ProGrip Mesh Complications Lawsuit Filed Over Alleged Defects and Failure To Warn Patients

Covidien ProGrip Mesh Complications Lawsuit Filed Over Alleged Defects and Failure To Warn Patients

A New York woman has filed a product liability lawsuit, indicating that she and other patients have experienced an array of ProGrip hernia mesh complications, leading to the product’s failure and the need for additional medical treatment.

The complaint (PDF) was brought by Octaviana Remigio in the Commonwealth of Massachusetts Department of the Trial Court on April 17. It names Covidien LP and Sofradim Corp. as defendants.

Remigio states that the ProGrip hernia mesh she was implanted with was defectively designed, despite the manufacturers’ claims that it was safe and effective.

Covidien ProGrip Hernia Mesh Complications

Covidien’s ProGrip mesh is designed to treat open inguinal hernia repair, using a self-fixating design that employs a surface covered with polylactic acid microgrips and polyester microfilaments to fix the device in place. In this way, the device is intended to work in a manner similar to Velcro.

However, Remigio’s complaint joins thousands of similar hernia mesh lawsuits over the past decade, claiming the manufacturers have failed to warn patients and the medical community about the possible risks of ProGrip mesh complications. The lawsuits allege these problems may lead to chronic pain, infections, adhesions, a return of the hernias the device was intended to repair, and additional surgery to remove the implant after it fails.

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.

ProGrip Hernia Mesh Allegations

In the lawsuit, Remigio states that she was implanted with a ProGrip mesh to address her inguinal hernia. However, she argues that the defective design led to the device’s eventual failure and a variety of ProGrip mesh complications.

In addition, Remigio indicates she is just one of thousands of patients who were implanted with the mesh only to have problems arise. However, once those patients and their doctors decide to remove the device, they often discover that there are no directions on how to remove the implant properly and safely.

According to her complaint, the ProGrip mesh label warns of complications that are “typically associated with surgically implantable materials,” which falls very short of what the warnings should include.

“Defendants’ claim their PLA Microgrip Devices provide a reduced foreign material reaction and improved biocompatibility compared to other materials. Defendants’ claim is false, or at very least highly misleading, as their PLA Microgrip Devices induce a severe foreign material reaction and are not biocompatible, which results in severe complications, injuries, and device degradation.”

Octaviana Remigio v. Covidien LP et al

The lawsuit links ProGrip mesh complications to injuries that include:

  • Adhesions
  • Infections
  • Seroma
  • Fistula formation
  • Bowel complications and obstructions
  • Erosion
  • Organ perforation
  • Organ removal
  • Loss of compliance
  • Increased scar tissue
  • Injuries to nearby organs, blood vessels, tissues and nerves
  • Chronic pain
  • Hernia recurrence
  • Chronic inflammatory and fibrotic reaction
  • Formation of tumor-like masses
  • Granulomatous response
  • Allergic reaction
  • Improper wound healing
  • Foreign body response
  • Bowel strangulation
  • Immature collagen formation
  • Death

Remigio presents claims of design defect, failure to warn and negligence. She seeks both compensatory and punitive damages.

Hernia Mesh Lawsuits

While Remigio’s lawsuit was brought in state court, more than 2,200 similar hernia mesh lawsuits are currently filed against both Covidien and Medtronic, its parent company, with all federal claims centralized in the District of Massachusetts before U.S. District Judge Pattie B. Saris for coordinated discovery and pretrial proceedings.

The parties are currently working on preparing a series of bellwether trials meant to provide them with an opportunity to see how juries respond to evidence and testimony likely to be repeated throughout the litigation. These early test cases can help the parties determine how juries are likely to decide future, similar claims, which could help form the basis of a hernia mesh lawsuit settlement agreement.

The first Covidien hernia mesh bellwether trial is currently scheduled to begin on July 13, 2026. However, if the bellwether process does not result in a global settlement or broader resolution, the court may eventually begin sending individual cases back to federal courts across the country for separate trials.

Sign up for more legal news that could affect you or your family.

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.



0 Comments


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

A group of federal judges will determine whether all Dupixent cancer lawsuits should be formed into a multidistrict litigation, following oral arguments set for May 28.
A product liability lawsuit alleges unlicensed Abbott representatives made real-time spinal cord stimulator programming decisions based on a Texas woman’s responses, improperly modifying the device and contributing to her injuries.