The Legal Examiner Mark The Legal Examiner Mark The Legal Examiner Mark search twitter facebook feed linkedin instagram google-plus avvo phone envelope checkmark mail-reply spinner error close
Skip to main content

A Tennessee woman recently filed a new Bard hernia mesh lawsuit in the Eastern District of Tennessee. She claims that the Bard Dulex Mesh that was used to repair her ventral hernia caused her serious and ongoing injuries.

Bard Dulex Mesh “Defectively Designed,” According to Plaintiff

The “Dulex” hernia mesh is designed, manufactured, and distributed by C. R. Bard and their subsidiary, Davol. The device is a dual-sided patch designed to repair a ventral hernia, a bulge of tissues that forms within the muscles of the abdominal wall. Surgeons use the net-like patch to shore up and support weakened tissues and muscles, securing a lasting repair. Dulex Mesh is designed to remain in the body long-term and is supposed to incorporate itself into bodily tissues without harming them.

The plaintiff, however, states that the mesh is not suited for implantation into the body because the material with which it is made causes adverse tissue reactions. These, in turn, can lead to serious complications. The plaintiff goes on to say that the product is dangerous, defective, and negligently designed for the following reasons:

  • It allows bacteria to enter the body and hide from the body’s natural defenses. The bacteria then secrete an “encasing slime (biofilm)” that further protects the bacteria and allows it to grow and multiply.
  • The mesh leaches toxic compounds and chemicals that cause inflammation and the formation of scar tissue.
  • The mesh tends to flake and tear, leading to degradation and the release of more toxic compounds, while exacerbating inflammation and scarring.
  • The mesh can shrink, causing wound contraction.
  • The mesh has “low porosity,” meaning that it doesn’t allow tissue to grow into it like it should. This contributes to the inflammatory reaction.
  • As the mesh malfunctions, it can lead to nerve entrapment, nerve damage, fistulae formation, erosion of the mesh into nearby organs, and chronic pain.

The plaintiff claims that Bard and Davol were aware of their product’s shortcomings, yet they failed to provide adequate warnings to doctors and patients. The plaintiff alleges that, instead, they misrepresented clinical study results to boost the perceived performance of the mesh, while masking its safety risks.

Plaintiff Underwent Repeated Corrective Surgeries Because of Infected Mesh

Mesh failure or complications can result in difficult mesh removal during reparative surgery. The plaintiff adds that the defendants failed to design and establish a safe and effective procedure for the removal of the mesh.

As to her personal experience, the plaintiff says she was implanted with the Dulex Mesh on June 13, 2008 during surgery to repair an abdominal hernia. She was not informed before the surgery of the possible complications.

About four years later, in September 2012, the plaintiff had to undergo surgery to remove the Dulex Mesh, which was infected. She had to endure additional surgeries to treat mesh-related complications, including a surgery as recent as May 2017. The plaintiff says her injuries are severe and that she will continue to suffer physical pain and mental anguish as a result.

Comments are closed.

Of Interest