If you were implanted with a Bard or Davol hernia mesh and later needed treatment for adhesions, bowel obstruction, infection, or revision surgery, here is who may qualify in MDL 2846 — and where the litigation stands after Becton Dickinson's reported billion-dollar-plus settlement framework.
Allegations Only · Settled Without Admission
This page describes ongoing litigation and an investigation. The statements below are unproven allegations. Becton Dickinson, C.R. Bard, and Davol have not been found liable, and their reported global settlement framework was announced without any admission of wrongdoing. Eligibility depends on the facts of each case. This page is informational and is not legal or medical advice. Do not stop using any prescribed medical treatment without consulting your doctor.
What Is This About?
Were you implanted with a hernia mesh made by C.R. Bard or its Davol subsidiary — such as Ventralex, 3DMax, or the PerFix Plug — and later diagnosed with adhesions, a bowel obstruction, infection, or a hernia recurrence that required a second surgery? If so, you may be eligible to speak with counsel about your legal options.Thousands of patients have brought lawsuits alleging that Bard/Davol polypropylene hernia mesh is defectively designed and that the companies failed to adequately warn patients and surgeons of the risks. The federal cases are consolidated in multidistrict litigation known as MDL 2846, In re: Davol/C.R. Bard Polypropylene Hernia Mesh Products Liability Litigation, before Judge Edmund A. Sargus Jr. in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Ohio. It is one of the largest medical-device MDLs in the country.
The claims are allegations that have not been proven in court. Bard has won some bellwether trials and lost others, and its parent company has since moved to resolve the bulk of the claims through a settlement framework — without admitting liability.
Which Bard & Davol Mesh Products Are Involved?
The litigation focuses on polypropylene (and polypropylene-plus-coating) hernia mesh devices sold by C.R. Bard and Davol. The products most often named include:• Ventralex and Ventralex ST hernia patch
• Ventralight ST mesh
• 3DMax and 3DMax Light mesh
• PerFix Plug and PerFix Light Plug
• Composix and Composix E/X mesh
• Sepramesh IP and the Modified Kugel patch
Several of these devices use a resorbable coating or barrier layer — for example, the "ST" (Sepra Technology) coating — that is intended to reduce the mesh sticking to internal organs. Plaintiffs allege that this coating degrades too quickly, leaving bare polypropylene against the bowel and abdominal wall. (The older Kugel patch recall litigation is a separate, earlier matter distinct from MDL 2846.)
Free settlement alerts
Get notified when new class actions open to claims
Join thousands of readers who get the latest class action settlements you may qualify for — delivered straight to your inbox.
What Do the Lawsuits Allege?
Plaintiffs allege that the polypropylene used in these devices is not biologically compatible with permanent implantation and that it degrades inside the body, triggering inflammation and scarring. They further allege that the resorbable coating on the "ST" devices fails prematurely. The core legal theories are:• Design defect: that the mesh material and coating were unreasonably dangerous as designed.
• Failure to warn: that Bard and Davol did not adequately warn patients and surgeons of the risks — with plaintiffs alleging the companies were told by suppliers that the resin was not intended for permanent human implantation.
The alleged injuries include adhesions (the mesh sticking to organs), bowel obstruction, organ or bowel perforation, mesh migration and erosion, chronic and severe pain, chronic infection, fistula formation, hernia recurrence, and the need for revision or removal surgery. None of these allegations has been established as fact against the company across the board; some juries have accepted them and others have not.
Who May Qualify?
You may qualify to speak with counsel if you were implanted with a Bard or Davol hernia mesh device and later experienced a documented complication such as:• Adhesions or bowel obstruction
• Organ or bowel perforation
• Mesh migration, erosion, or contraction
• Chronic pain or chronic infection
• Hernia recurrence
• Revision or removal (explant) surgery
Eligibility depends on the specific device, your diagnosis, and the facts of your case. Helpful evidence includes your operative report, the implant sticker or device identification card, hospital and billing records, and records of any revision surgery. Statutes of limitations vary by state and can be affected by an existing settlement program, so anyone considering a claim should consult an attorney promptly.
Bellwether Trials & the Becton Dickinson Settlement
The MDL ran a series of bellwether trials — representative test cases used to gauge how juries respond to the evidence:• Johns v. Bard (August 2021, Ventralight ST) — a defense verdict for Bard.
• Milanesi v. Bard (April 2022, Ventralex) — a plaintiff verdict of about $255,000 on a design-defect theory.
• Stinson v. Bard (November 2023, PerFix Plug) — a plaintiff verdict of about $500,000 on negligence and failure-to-warn claims.
After these mixed results, Judge Sargus cancelled a fourth scheduled bellwether and directed the parties toward global-settlement mediation. In October 2024, Becton Dickinson (BD) — the parent company of C.R. Bard and Davol — announced a settlement framework reported to exceed $1 billion to resolve more than 38,000 hernia mesh claims, described as the vast majority of existing cases, to be paid over a multi-year period. A qualified settlement fund was reported to have been established, with claims reviewed through an administration process. BD announced the framework without admitting wrongdoing.
Because individual claims are being resolved confidentially through claimants' attorneys, there is no public claim form to complete on this page, and any individual recovery depends on the strength of a claimant's medical records and the terms of the program.
Frequently Asked Questions
Which Bard and Davol hernia mesh products are in the litigation?
MDL 2846 involves polypropylene hernia mesh made by C.R. Bard and its Davol subsidiary, including devices marketed as Ventralex, Ventralex ST, Ventralight ST, 3DMax, PerFix Plug, and Composix. Eligibility depends on the specific device implanted and the complications a patient experienced.
What injuries are alleged in the Bard hernia mesh lawsuits?
Plaintiffs allege the mesh caused adhesions, bowel obstruction, organ or bowel perforation, mesh migration, erosion, chronic pain, chronic infection, fistula formation, hernia recurrence, and the need for revision or removal surgery. These are unproven allegations.
Is there a Bard hernia mesh settlement?
In October 2024, Becton Dickinson (BD), the parent company of C.R. Bard and Davol, announced a global settlement framework reported to exceed $1 billion to resolve more than 38,000 hernia mesh claims. The settlements are being administered through claimants' attorneys and were reached without any admission of wrongdoing. There is no public claim form on this page.
How do I know if my mesh was made by Bard or Davol?
The manufacturer and device name are recorded in your surgical and hospital records. Your operative report, implant sticker or device identification card, and billing records typically identify the specific mesh used. An attorney can request these records to confirm the device.
Related Mass Torts & Sources
• Covidien / Parietex hernia mesh lawsuit (MDL 3029) — a companion hernia mesh MDL against Medtronic's Covidien.• Bard PowerPort implanted-catheter lawsuit — a separate device made by the same manufacturer.
• Bair Hugger surgical warming device lawsuit (MDL 2666) — alleged surgical-site infection claims.
Primary sources: U.S. Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation (JPML) pending-MDL statistics; the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Ohio MDL 2846 docket; and reporting by Bloomberg Law on the Becton Dickinson settlement.
