Hernia Mesh

The Covidien lawsuit appears to be progressing toward potential settlement discussions, as both parties have agreed to extend the deadline for selecting a mediator until February 24, 2025. This extension provides additional time to negotiate the choice of a neutral third party to facilitate settlement talks, a crucial step toward resolving the claims.

The timeline for expert discovery remains largely intact, with plaintiffs required to submit expert reports by March 7, 2025, and defendants by April 18, 2025. However, the agreement to push back the mediation deadline indicates that both sides are open to meaningful discussions that could lead to a resolution.

While a settlement is not guaranteed at this stage, the ongoing emphasis on mediation suggests that both parties are exploring potential resolutions while simultaneously preparing for bellwether trials. These early trials—if they proceed—would play a key role in determining liability and potential settlement values for the broader group of plaintiffs.

Many anticipate that Covidien settlement amounts may surpass those seen in Bard cases, though the final outcome remains uncertain.

A Sacramento man has filed a lawsuit in Contra Costa County, California, against several medical device manufacturers, including Covidien Inc., Medtronic USA Inc., Tyco Healthcare Group LP, and others, claiming that a defective hernia mesh implant resulted in severe and long-term injuries.

The plaintiff alleges that he underwent hernia repair surgery in May 2022, during which a Covidien ProGrip Self-Gripping Polyester Mesh implant was used. Following the surgery, he experienced multiple complications, including mesh failure, nerve damage, and chronic pain, ultimately requiring additional procedures, such as a triple neurectomy and vasectomy, to remove the faulty mesh.

The lawsuit asserts that the defendants were negligent in the design, manufacturing, and marketing of the hernia mesh, and failed to inform both patients and healthcare providers about its potential risks. The plaintiff argues that the mesh’s design led to its contraction, migration, and degradation, causing significant pain and necessitating further invasive surgeries. Additionally, the complaint includes claims against the implanting surgeon and Contra Costa Health, alleging medical negligence for not properly obtaining informed consent and providing adequate postoperative care.

The lawsuit includes multiple causes of action, including strict product liability, negligence, fraudulent concealment, breach of express warranty, and medical malpractice. The plaintiff seeks both compensatory and punitive damages, claiming that the defendants knowingly misrepresented the safety of the mesh and concealed its risks from doctors and patients.

This case may ultimately be transferred to the Multi-District Litigation (MDL).

As of today, the current number of pending claims in the MDLs is as follows:

• Bard: 24,102
• Coviden: 1,660

The MDLs for Atrium C-Qur (500) and Ethicon Physiomesh (16) are still ongoing but are nearing conclusion.

Our legal team continues to accept new claims for Bard and Coviden.

The MDL judge has authorized the establishment of a Qualified Settlement Fund (QSF) to facilitate settlement payments for individuals who suffered complications due to Bard’s hernia mesh products. This fund is structured to ensure that all settlements are processed with efficiency and transparency.

A Qualified Settlement Fund serves as a dedicated account designed to hold settlement proceeds, guaranteeing proper allocation to affected individuals. In this instance, appointed administrators will manage the fund, overseeing the distribution process to ensure that each eligible recipient receives their rightful settlement.

The Covidien MDL, which has often remained in the background compared to the Bard hernia mesh litigation, is now making significant strides. Based on the severity of the reported injuries and the alleged design flaws in Covidien products, it is anticipated that settlements in these cases could surpass those in the Bard litigation.

Recently, Judge M. Page Kelly issued Case Management Order 15, introducing an updated timeline for crucial pre-trial proceedings in 2025. This schedule outlines key deadlines for general corporate discovery, expert discovery, bellwether trial case selection, and pre-trial motions. These proceedings are set to lead into the initial bellwether trials, projected to commence in late 2025 or early 2026. The results of these trials will play a pivotal role in shaping settlement discussions and determining Covidien’s legal responsibility.

Order CMO #55 introduces the Intensive Settlement Process (ISP) to streamline case resolutions. As part of this initiative, Ellen K. Reisman and John Jackson have been appointed as Special Masters to oversee and manage the process. Their responsibilities include supervising settlement discussions, mediating disputes, and ensuring the ISP moves forward efficiently. They will provide quarterly status updates to the Court regarding the ISP’s progress.

The ISP is set to begin in January 2027—yes, that’s correct. If you choose to opt out and pursue an independent settlement, you could be left waiting for more than two years before any progress is made.

From that point, monthly settlement conferences and mediation sessions will take place to resolve outstanding claims. Plaintiffs must submit detailed settlement proposals before negotiations begin. If initial discussions do not lead to resolutions, formal mediations will be held, with a Special Master overseeing the process. Mediation costs will be split equally between Bard and the participating plaintiffs.

The ISP will remain active until all pending claims are addressed, offering plaintiffs a structured opportunity to reach settlements. However, if cases are still unresolved by June 2029, claimants may choose to exit the ISP and proceed under the relevant docket control orders. For those considering a trial, this means waiting over four and a half years just to restart the legal process. Will this frustrate a lot of plaintiffs? Absolutely.

Judge Sargus appointed Ellen K. Reisman and John Jackson as Special Masters to oversee the settlement process. The court has also introduced an Intensive Settlements Process (ISP), which will be managed by the Special Masters under the court’s supervision until all pending claims are resolved.

Settlement Masters typically play a key role in organizing and categorizing plaintiffs into tiers or grids, taking into account factors such as the severity of their injuries and the strength of their claims.

An increasing number of individuals are filing lawsuits against Covidien after being harmed by their hernia mesh products. As of November, there are 1,546 pending hernia mesh lawsuits in the multidistrict litigation (MDL 3029) against Covidien, a major manufacturer of hernia mesh. While several settlement agreements have been reached between hernia mesh manufacturers and those injured by the products, many victims continue to suffer from complications linked to meshes used in hernia repair surgeries. As these injuries persist, more lawsuits are expected to be filed against Covidien, as well as other major hernia mesh manufacturers such as Atrium, Ethicon, and Bard.

A plaintiff in the Bard hernia mesh multidistrict litigation has passed away. William Mabry, who died in June 2022, is survived by his wife, Joyce, who is now pursuing legal action on his behalf. According to an October 15, 2024, court filing, Joyce believes that William’s death resulted from complications caused by the Bard hernia mesh as well as the underlying injury it was used to treat. As the administrator of his estate, Joyce will continue the fight against Bard, now bringing a wrongful death claim in addition to the original lawsuit for the harm caused by the defective product.

Judge Sargus has denied the plaintiffs’ motion for remand, as discussed in our September 5 update. The judge explained that there is a limited stay in effect, as outlined in Case Management Orders 52 and 53 (referenced in the July 6 update), which prohibits any motions or remand requests during this period. Since the motion was filed while the stay was in place, the Court denied the motion without prejudice.

While this ruling was expected, it would have been beneficial to see Bard’s response to the motion, as it likely would have included comments on the ongoing settlement negotiations. Many plaintiffs have been left in the dark for too long, and any insight into the settlement process would have been valuable.