Covidien Hernia Mesh Lawsuit Filed Over Failure of Parietex Composite Product

The failure of a Covidien Parietex composite hernia mesh caused a California woman to suffer severe and painful complications, resulting in a permanent injury following a hernia repair that has diminished her quality of life, according to allegations in a recent filed product liability lawsuit.

Danielle White filed the complaint (PDF) in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California, indicating Medtronic, Inc. and it’s Covidien LP knew, or should have known, that the Perietex hernia mesh was defective and unreasonably dangerous, yet continued to manufacture and sell the product.

Covidien Parietex is a two-sided hernia mesh, which is commonly used during certain ventral hernia repairs. The composite mesh is coated with a protective, absorbable collagen barrier that is intended to prevent tissue attachment. However, the lawsuit alleges this barrier and other design elements actually result in a high rate of failure and hernia mesh complications.

Learn More About

Hernia Mesh Lawsuits

Cases reviewed for problems with several types of hernia repair products.

Learn More About this Lawsuit See if you qualify for a settlement

White indicates she had a Parietex patch implanted during a laparoscopic ventral hernia repair in January 2018, and began to suffer abdominal pain, nausea, vomiting and constipation shortly after. This has resulted in multiple trips to the Emergency Room, doctor visits and the need for heavy use of painkillers, due to irreversible injuries caused by the failure of the Covidien Parietex mesh.

The complaint raises claims similar to those presented in a number of other Covidien Parietex hernia mesh lawsuits being pursued by individuals who have experienced problems associated with the design, which plaintiffs allege is prone to unravel inside the body, resulting in its fibers migrating and causing inflammatory responses. It can also contract over time, according to the lawsuit, causing tension on tacks and sutures that result in tearing.

“Defendants claim that the Parietex Composite Mesh is coated with a protective absorbable collagen barrier to help prevent tissue attachment,” White’s lawsuit states. “However, the absorbable collagen barrier on the visceral side of Parietex Composite Mesh fails to protect the body from the hydrophilic three-dimensional polyester textile on the parietal side because the absorbable collagen barrier breaks down after coming in contact with moisture.”

White presents claims for manufacturing defect, negligence, breach of warranty, violation of federal and state consumer protection laws, negligent infliction of emotional distress, fraudulent concealment, and negligent misrepresentation, seeking both compensatory and punitive damages.

In addition to claims over problems with Parietex mesh, there are also a number of Bard hernia mesh lawsuits, Atrium C-Qur lawsuits and Ethicon Physiomesh lawsuits pending nationwide, leading to the federal court system to establish three separate centralized pretrial proceedings for litigation involving those products. However, there is currently no consolidated proceeding for the Covidien mesh lawsuits.


"*" 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

Bard Argues Hernia Mesh Lawsuits Previously Selected for Bellwether Trials Are No Longer
Bard Argues Hernia Mesh Lawsuits Previously Selected for Bellwether Trials Are No Longer "Representative" (Posted 2 days ago)

Bard claims two cases selected for the third and fourth bellwether trials are no longer representative of the litigation due to the plaintiffs' worsening injuries and need for additional surgeries due to their failed hernia mesh products.