Active Litigation
TorHoerman Law is actively accepting claims for the Hernia Mesh Lawsuit.
A hernia mesh lawsuit may be available to patients who developed serious complications after receiving a surgical mesh implant during hernia repair surgery.
This page explains who may qualify, the injuries reported in current cases, the manufacturers and products involved, and the evidence needed to support a claim.
Patients who required revision surgery, mesh removal, or treatment for bowel obstruction, chronic pain, migration, infection, or hernia recurrence may have grounds to investigate whether the implant contributed to their injuries.
TorHoerman Law is currently reviewing qualifying claims involving Covidien hernia mesh products.
Hernia mesh is commonly used during hernia surgery to reinforce weakened tissue in the abdominal wall and reduce the risk of recurrence.
Some patients later develop chronic pain, infection, bowel obstruction, mesh migration, mesh shrinkage, or other severe complications that require additional treatment.
A hernia mesh injury may occur when the implant moves, contracts, erodes into nearby tissue, or triggers an inflammatory response.
In more serious cases, patients may require revision surgery, partial or complete mesh removal, or bowel repair.
Lawsuits involving a defective hernia mesh implant generally allege that manufacturers sold medical devices with unsafe designs or failed to provide adequate warnings about known risks.
These claims have been filed against several manufacturers, including Covidien, Bard, Ethicon, and Atrium.
The strength of a claim often depends on the specific product, the nature of the injury, the findings recorded during revision surgery, and the medical evidence connecting the complication to the mesh.
Operative reports and implant records can identify the manufacturer and provide critical evidence about what occurred during the original procedure and any later corrective surgery.
TorHoerman Law is currently reviewing qualifying claims involving Covidien hernia mesh products implanted after 2010 when the patient underwent revision surgery and has a documented mesh-related injury.
If you or a loved one suffered serious complications after receiving a hernia mesh implant, you may be eligible to file a hernia mesh lawsuit and seek financial compensation.
Contact a hernia mesh attorney from TorHoerman Law for a free consultation.
You can also use the chat feature on this page to find out if you’re eligible to file a hernia mesh lawsuit.
U.S. District Judge Patti B. Saris has said she will reduce the $88 million verdict returned in the first federal Covidien hernia mesh bellwether trial, calling the award “shocking and excessive” and saying it appeared to be “the product of passion.”
At a November 10 hearing, Judge Saris said the $88 million award in Patterson v. Covidien would not stand at its current amount, although she has not yet determined the reduced figure.
A federal jury awarded $77 million to Larry Patterson and $11 million to his wife, Tammy Patterson, on August 4 after finding that Covidien failed to adequately warn about risks associated with its Symbotex hernia mesh. The entire $88 million award was compensatory, and the jury did not award punitive damages.
Covidien has asked the court to substantially reduce the verdict and has challenged the judgment through post-trial motions. Judge Saris said the plaintiffs presented a strong liability case but indicated that the damages award was excessive.
The court is expected to issue a written order setting a reduced amount. The Pattersons would then have the option to accept the lower award or seek a new trial on damages.
As of November 2, 2,486 cases were pending in Covidien MDL No. 3029. The next bellwether, Stephen v. Covidien, is scheduled for January 11, 2027, followed by the first ProGrip bellwether, Passmore v. Covidien, on March 29.
A Tennessee man has filed a lawsuit against Covidien LP and Sofradim Corp. alleging that a Parietene Macroporous Mesh used in his hernia repair caused severe nerve damage and chronic pain.
The complaint was filed October 15, 2026 in Massachusetts Superior Court.
He had a left inguinal hernia repair, and he says the mesh later had to be removed after multiple additional surgeries.
According to the suit, the polypropylene mesh is defectively designed, including its pore size, weave, material volume and resin selection, and is “not suited for implantation into the human body.”
The plaintiff alleges the mesh’s collagen barrier failed and that the mesh adhered to organs instead of repairing the hernia, and that the defendants knew of these risks and did not address them.
He reports ilioinguinal nerve involvement and complex regional pain syndrome.
The claims are breach of warranty, defective design, failure to warn and negligence, and he seeks compensatory and punitive damages.
Covidien faces roughly 2,500 similar hernia mesh lawsuits nationwide over products such as ProGrip, Symbotex and Parietex, and those cases are consolidated in a multidistrict litigation in the District of Massachusetts before U.S. District Judge Patti B. Saris.
The first bellwether trial ended in early August with an $88 million verdict for a plaintiff who had a Symbotex mesh, and the second bellwether is scheduled for January 11, 2027, with a third set for March 2027.
A California man has filed a new lawsuit in the Bard hernia mesh litigation, alleging his Bard Ventralex mesh crumpled and failed, causing an infection and a small bowel fistula that required emergency surgery.
He filed the complaint against C.R. Bard and Davol in Sacramento Superior Court on September 30, and the case was removed to the Eastern District of California on October 7.
According to the complaint, he received the Ventralex patch during an umbilical hernia repair in November 2011 and developed worsening pain in December 2024.
Doctors found an infected mesh and a small bowel fistula, and during emergency surgery they removed the mesh and dead tissue and resected 10 centimeters of his small bowel, discovering that the mesh had crumpled, adhered to the bowel and perforated it in two places.
He alleges the polypropylene in the mesh degrades and fragments over time, triggering chronic inflammation, and that Bard knew of the design problems for years.
His claims include inadequate warning, negligence, fraudulent concealment and breach of express warranty, and he seeks compensatory and punitive damages.
Bard has faced more than 25,000 hernia mesh lawsuits involving products including the Ventralex, Ventralight, PerFix Plug and 3DMax, which are consolidated in the Southern District of Ohio before Judge Edmund Sargus.
A settlement reached in October 2025 resolved tens of thousands of claims, but because meshes already implanted continue to fail, new claims continue to be filed.
A federal judge has chosen the case that will serve as the third Covidien hernia mesh bellwether trial.
It involves a man who says his Parietex ProGrip mesh caused complications that cost him a testicle.
Judge Patti Saris picked the case in a September 23 notice.
Trial is set to begin March 29, 2027, with a final pretrial conference on March 10.
The man was implanted with the mesh in May 2017.
He says he had extreme pain in the following months, which he compared to chicken wire stabbing his groin.
The surgery to remove the mesh cost him a testicle, and he needed several revision surgeries. Plaintiffs across the litigation allege the mesh’s absorbable collagen barrier breaks down too quickly.
They say that lets the polyester mesh attach to the bowel and other organs.
Plaintiffs proposed the case on September 22.
Covidien pushed for a different ProGrip case, arguing it was more representative because it involved one failed mesh and one removal surgery.
Judge Saris kept the original schedule, which gave plaintiffs the pick.
A second bellwether is set for January 11, 2027.
A September 18 scheduling order set an October 2 deadline for summary judgment and case specific Daubert motions, with a final pretrial conference on December 10.
The first bellwether ended in an $88 million verdict over a Symbotex mesh.
About 2,500 Covidien hernia mesh lawsuits are consolidated before Judge Saris in the District of Massachusetts.
Hernia mesh litigation has reached a pivotal moment.
An $88 million verdict was handed down against Medtronic last month in the first bellwether trial over its Covidien-brand mesh product.
The case involved a plaintiff who required emergency surgery after his bowel became attached to the implanted mesh.
That trial was one of nearly 2,500 cases alleging Covidien hernia mesh caused serious complications following hernia repair procedures.
A second bellwether trial is scheduled for January, and its outcome could shape the direction of the entire litigation.
Bellwether trials serve a specific function in mass litigation.
Rather than preparing thousands of individual cases for trial, courts select a small sample to proceed first. The results are treated as a signal for how similar cases might resolve.
A pattern of heavy losses at trial often pushes manufacturers to negotiate a broader settlement rather than continue litigating case by case.
The $88 million result was substantial on its own. If Medtronic faces another significant verdict in January, pressure toward settlement talks could intensify.
This would not be the first time a major hernia mesh manufacturer has resolved claims this way.
Ethicon settled a large share of lawsuits involving its Physiomesh product as case volume grew. Becton, Dickinson and Company, which owns Bard, announced in 2024 that it had reached an agreement covering the vast majority of tens of thousands of hernia mesh claims tied to its products.
Covidien’s litigation is now among the last major hernia mesh cases still being actively contested at trial, rather than moving toward resolution.
A federal judge has scheduled the next Covidien hernia mesh bellwether trial for January 11, 2027.
The announcement follows the first bellwether trial, which ended in early August with an $88 million verdict against the medical device manufacturer.
Covidien faces nearly 2,500 product liability lawsuits nationwide over its hernia mesh implants, including the Symbotex, Parietex and ProGrip lines.
The complaints allege the mesh’s protective collagen coating degrades too quickly, exposing the underlying polyester before healing completes.
Plaintiffs claim this causes the mesh to adhere to internal organs, leading to bowel obstructions, infections, recurring hernias and revision surgery.
The lawsuits also allege Covidien and parent company Medtronic knew of these risks but failed to warn patients or correct the design.
All federal Covidien hernia mesh cases are consolidated before U.S. District Judge Patti B. Saris in the District of Massachusetts.
The upcoming trial will involve claims from a Mississippi plaintiff who received a Symbotex implant during a 2017 hernia repair and underwent additional surgery in 2020 to remove the mesh after developing small bowel adhesions.
Judge Saris has ordered a pretrial memorandum by December 1, with a final pretrial conference set for December 10.
A third bellwether trial, involving a Covidien ProGrip product, is tentatively scheduled for March 2027.
If the parties cannot reach a settlement following the bellwether trials, the judge may begin remanding individual claims back to their original federal courts for separate trial dates.
The federal judge overseeing Covidien hernia mesh litigation has called a status conference for August 19.
The meeting follows the $88 million verdict awarded in the first bellwether trial earlier this month. Covidien and parent company Medtronic face more than 2,400 pending hernia mesh lawsuits.
Plaintiffs allege the company’s Symbotex, Parietex, and ProGrip mesh products are defectively designed and prone to failure.
The verdict isn’t binding on other cases in the MDL.
Still, it’s seen as a significant early win that could shape settlement talks going forward.
No additional bellwether trials have been scheduled yet. If the parties can’t reach a broader resolution, the judge could begin sending cases back to their original courts for individual trials.
The case adds to a separate, larger wave of Bard hernia mesh litigation. Bard faces more than 25,000 similar claims in its own MDL.
Bard reached a settlement in October 2025, though new cases continue to be filed as complications surface in more patients over time.
A federal jury in Boston ordered Medtronic to pay $88 million in the first bellwether trial out of more than 10,350 pending Covidien hernia mesh cases nationwide.
Jurors found Covidien liable for failing to warn about risks tied to its Symbotex hernia mesh and for concealing product information.
The award included $77 million to the plaintiff and $11 million to his wife for loss of consortium.
The plaintiff alleged the mesh’s protective coating dissolved in about seven days, far sooner than intended, causing it to adhere to his bowel and require additional surgeries.
Medtronic said it plans to challenge the verdict in post-trial motions and on appeal.
The verdict is expected to shape settlement talks across the remaining cases as more bellwether trials proceed.
Medtronic is facing the first federal bellwether trial involving allegations that hernia mesh manufactured by its Covidien subsidiary caused serious injuries following implantation.
The trial in Patterson v. Covidien began in Boston during the week of July 13, with attorneys presenting opening statements to the jury on July 15 before U.S. District Judge Patti B. Saris.
Larry Patterson alleges that Symbotex mesh implanted during a 2017 hernia repair adhered to his bowel and contributed to an obstruction and recurrent hernia requiring another operation in 2020.
Patterson’s attorneys argue that Covidien failed to adequately warn surgeons about how quickly Symbotex’s absorbable collagen barrier could disappear, potentially exposing the underlying polyester mesh to the bowel before healing was complete.
Covidien disputes that the mesh caused Patterson’s injuries and argues that the product performed as intended. The defense has pointed to other potential causes of his complications, including his medical history and risk of hernia recurrence.
The case is the first of approximately 2,400 lawsuits in MDL No. 3029 to reach a federal jury.
An Ohio woman has filed a product liability lawsuit against C.R. Bard alleging that a Ventralight hernia mesh implant failed and caused chronic pain, a recurrent hernia and ongoing physical limitations.
The lawsuit was filed May 28 in New Jersey. According to the complaint, the plaintiff received Ventralight mesh during a ventral hernia repair in 2022 and required revision surgery less than two years later after developing abdominal complications and a recurrent hernia.
She alleges that she continues to experience chronic pain and limitations that interfere with daily activities.
The complaint challenges the polypropylene construction of the Ventralight mesh, alleging that the material can contract, degrade and trigger chronic inflammation or other foreign-body reactions after implantation.
The plaintiff also alleges that Bard failed to adequately warn physicians and patients about the risks of recurrence, adhesions, infection and additional surgery. The allegations have not been proven in court.
A Wisconsin man has filed a product liability lawsuit against C.R. Bard Inc., alleging that a Ventralex Hernia Patch failed and caused complications requiring revision surgery and complete removal of the implant.
Chad Fonseca filed the lawsuit in New Jersey state court on May 13, and Bard removed the case to the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey the following day.
According to the complaint, Fonseca received a Ventralex patch during an umbilical hernia repair in July 2019. He later developed a recurrent umbilical hernia and underwent revision surgery in March 2025.
The complaint states that the surgeon found the edge of the Ventralex patch herniated and the mesh adherent to the underside of Fonseca’s umbilical stalk. The mesh was completely removed, and the hernia was repaired with another implant.
Fonseca alleges that defects in the Ventralex design contributed to the recurrence, abdominal pain and other complications. He brings product liability claims against Bard and seeks compensatory and punitive damages.
A New York woman has sued Covidien LP and Sofradim Corp., alleging that ProGrip hernia mesh failed after implantation and caused injuries requiring additional medical treatment.
Octaviana Remigio filed the complaint on April 17 in Middlesex County Superior Court in Massachusetts. She alleges that she received ProGrip mesh to repair an umbilical hernia and subsequently experienced complications from the implant.
The complaint alleges that the polyester used in ProGrip can degrade and lose mechanical strength over time. It also challenges the product’s self-fixating design, which uses thousands of absorbable polylactic acid microgrips to secure the mesh without traditional sutures or tacks.
Remigio claims the design can contribute to inflammation, adhesions, degradation and other complications and alleges that Covidien and Sofradim failed to adequately warn patients and physicians about those risks and the difficulty of removing ProGrip following complications.
The lawsuit brings claims including design defect, failure to warn and negligence. The allegations have not been resolved by the court.
A Texas man has filed a product liability lawsuit alleging that a Covidien hernia mesh implant perforated his bowel, caused a persistent infection and required multiple surgeries.
Steven Louis Jarmon originally filed the lawsuit in Texas state court, and Covidien and related Medtronic defendants removed the case to the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas on March 30.
According to the complaint, Jarmon received Covidien mesh during a right inguinal hernia repair in June 2016. In June 2024, he developed an abdominal abscess that persisted despite drainage and antibiotic treatment.
Jarmon alleges that surgeons later discovered the mesh had perforated his bowel and adhered to surrounding tissue. He underwent surgery to remove the mesh and damaged bowel, followed by additional procedures after a recurrent hernia and liver hematoma.
The lawsuit alleges that defects in the mesh’s polyester construction made it susceptible to degradation, fragmentation and loss of mechanical strength. Jarmon brings product liability and other claims against Covidien and Medtronic.
At the time of the filing, Jarmon’s case had not yet been transferred into the federal Covidien hernia mesh MDL. The Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation later ordered the case transferred to the District of Massachusetts in August 2026.
The first bellwether trial in the federal Covidien hernia mesh litigation remains scheduled to begin July 13, 2026, after the parties agreed to postpone a hearing on Covidien’s summary judgment motion.
In a February 11 joint motion, plaintiffs and defendants asked Judge Patti B. Saris to move the hearing from March 19 to April 2 because of scheduling conflicts. The parties specifically stated that they were not seeking to change the July trial date or any related deadlines.
The court granted the request on February 13.
Patterson v. Covidien involves allegations that Symbotex hernia mesh adhered to Larry Patterson’s bowel and caused an obstruction requiring additional surgery. Covidien is seeking summary judgment on certain claims before the case reaches a jury.
As of March 2, 2,348 cases were pending in Covidien MDL No. 3029, an increase of 88 from the previous month.
A study published in Langenbeck’s Archives of Surgery compared outcomes among 200 patients who underwent laparoscopic inguinal hernia repair using biological or synthetic mesh.
Researchers retrospectively evaluated 100 patients who received acellular matrix biological mesh and 100 who received polypropylene mesh between March 2019 and March 2022.
The groups showed no statistically significant differences in hernia recurrence, infection, seroma formation or chronic pain during follow-up. Patients who received biological mesh, however, reported significantly less foreign-body sensation.
The study provides additional data on how different mesh materials may affect outcomes after inguinal hernia repair but did not evaluate any specific Bard or Covidien product or determine that synthetic polypropylene mesh is defective.
A study published in Hernia on January 20 examined persistent postoperative pain after open inguinal hernia repair using data from the Swedish Hernia Register.
Researchers evaluated responses from 34,115 patients who underwent open anterior mesh repair and completed a questionnaire one year after surgery. About 25.9% reported pain that could not be ignored, while 15.7% reported pain that interfered with daily activities.
After accounting for patient and surgical factors, researchers found no significant association between the way surgeons identified or preserved the three inguinal nerves and the risk of persistent postoperative pain.
The findings provide context for chronic pain following mesh-based inguinal hernia repair. However, the study did not compare individual mesh products or evaluate whether any specific manufacturer’s device caused the reported pain.
A study published in Hernia on January 16 compared outcomes following incisional hernia repair using partially absorbable and nonabsorbable surgical mesh.
The retrospective study included 155 patients, with 47 receiving partially absorbable polypropylene and poly-L-lactic acid mesh and 108 receiving nonabsorbable polyester mesh.
Researchers found similar rates of postoperative complications and early hernia recurrence between the groups. Foreign-body sensation was reported in 4.8% of patients receiving partially absorbable mesh compared with 20.3% of patients receiving nonabsorbable mesh.
The study’s pain model also found a higher predicted risk of severe chronic pain in the nonabsorbable polyester group, at 21.6%, compared with 3.9% in the partially absorbable group.
The researchers concluded that both mesh types had comparable overall safety, while the partially absorbable material was associated with less foreign-body sensation and a lower predicted risk of severe chronic pain. The study did not evaluate Bard or Covidien products specifically. One author was employed by mesh manufacturer Cousin Biotech, and another reported receiving consulting fees from the company.
The first bellwether trial in the federal Covidien hernia mesh litigation has been rescheduled from February 17 to July 13, 2026.
U.S. District Judge Patti B. Saris entered an amended scheduling order on November 5 assigning the July trial date to Patterson v. Covidien. The court also canceled the July 13 trial previously scheduled for Stephen v. Covidien and directed the parties to propose a new date for that case later.
Patterson involves allegations that Covidien’s Symbotex hernia mesh adhered to Larry Patterson’s bowel and caused an obstruction requiring additional surgery.
Under the revised schedule, motions in limine are due April 6, 2026, with a final pretrial conference scheduled for June 25.
The change preserves Patterson as the first bellwether case while giving the court additional time to resolve pretrial and expert issues before trial.
Two studies published in JAMA Surgery in October 2025 provide new data on recurrence, postoperative pain and differences in performance among surgical hernia mesh products.
An October 8 randomized clinical trial, known as the BIOLAP study, followed 491 patients undergoing bilateral inguinal hernia repair. Biological mesh did not reduce postoperative pain compared with synthetic mesh, while the two-year recurrence rate was 11.2% with biological mesh compared with 2.5% with synthetic mesh. Seromas were also more common with biological mesh.
A separate October 29 study evaluated postmarket performance of 26 mesh products used in more than 124,000 inguinal hernia repairs. Researchers used an automated surveillance system to identify unusual rates of reoperation for hernia recurrence.
Six mesh products generated safety signals. Among minimally invasive repairs, Parietex mesh generated a sustained signal for increased reoperation risk compared with matched mesh products. Parietex ProGrip did not generate a similar signal, and the researchers cautioned that additional investigation is needed to determine why individual products triggered alerts.
The studies do not establish that a particular mesh product is defective or caused an individual patient’s injuries, but they provide additional data on recurrence and long-term mesh performance relevant to ongoing hernia mesh litigation.
A study published September 17 in the journal Hernia examined chronic postoperative pain and recurrence among patients who received different types of mesh during open inguinal hernia repair.
Researchers analyzed 319 patients who underwent Lichtenstein hernia repair using partially absorbable lightweight, permanent lightweight or heavyweight mesh. Products represented in the study included Medtronic’s Parietene and Parietex ProGrip, along with mesh products manufactured by Bard and Ethicon.
At six months, chronic postoperative inguinal pain was reported in 21% of patients receiving partially absorbable lightweight mesh, 21% receiving permanent lightweight mesh and 19% receiving heavyweight mesh. The differences were not statistically significant.
At one year, chronic pain had fallen to 3% in the partially absorbable lightweight group but remained around 20% in the other groups. Researchers cautioned that the partially absorbable group also showed a higher recurrence rate, although the number of patients with one-year recurrence data was small.
The study concluded that chronic pain remained common six months after surgery regardless of mesh weight and that additional long-term research is needed to understand the relationship between mesh properties, pain and recurrence.
A new product liability lawsuit against Covidien LP and Sofradim Production SAS has been filed directly into the federal Covidien hernia mesh litigation.
Margaret Schmillen filed the complaint on September 9 in the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts. The court formally opened Schmillen v. Covidien LP et al., No. 1:25-cv-12501, as part of MDL No. 3029 on September 10.
The case is assigned to U.S. District Judge Patti B. Saris, who oversees the coordinated federal proceedings. Schmillen has requested a jury trial.
The broader litigation involves allegations that certain Covidien surgical mesh products were defectively designed and caused complications following hernia repair procedures. Publicly available docket information does not identify the specific mesh product or injuries alleged in Schmillen’s complaint.
Covidien is seeking summary judgment on claims in Patterson v. Covidien, the first bellwether case in the federal Covidien hernia mesh litigation.
The case involves allegations that Symbotex hernia mesh adhered to plaintiff Larry Patterson’s bowel, resulting in an obstruction and additional surgery.
Ahead of the September 8 deadline for dispositive and expert motions, Covidien also asked the court to temporarily seal portions of its summary judgment filing containing documents designated confidential or highly confidential.
The summary judgment motion challenges whether Patterson has sufficient evidence to take certain claims to trial. The filing does not itself dismiss any claims, and Judge Patti B. Saris must rule on the arguments before the scheduled bellwether trial.
At the time of the filing, Patterson remained scheduled for trial beginning February 17, 2026.
The federal court overseeing the Covidien hernia mesh MDL has extended the deadline for the parties to complete settlement mediation from September 22, 2025, to January 14, 2026.
Plaintiffs and Covidien jointly requested the extension on August 6, explaining that additional time was needed to complete mediation. Magistrate Judge M. Page Kelley granted the request the following day.
The parties stated that the extension would not affect the existing bellwether schedule. At the time, the first trial in Patterson v. Covidien remained scheduled to begin February 17, 2026.
The order allows settlement discussions to continue alongside preparations for the first bellwether trial. No settlement agreement had been announced.
The first bellwether trial in the federal Covidien hernia mesh litigation remains scheduled for February 17, 2026, after the court extended several expert and pretrial motion deadlines.
On July 29, Magistrate Judge M. Page Kelley approved the parties’ request for additional time to complete expert depositions and prepare summary judgment and Daubert motions in Patterson v. Covidien.
The lawsuit involves allegations that a Symbotex hernia mesh implant adhered to Larry Patterson’s bowel and caused an obstruction requiring additional surgery.
Under the revised schedule, dispositive motions and challenges to expert testimony are due September 8, with oppositions due October 13 and replies due October 27.
The parties told the court that the extension would not affect the February 2026 trial date.
Medtronic disclosed that it and certain subsidiaries faced lawsuits brought on behalf of approximately 9,325 hernia mesh plaintiffs as of June 11, 2025.
According to the company’s annual filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission, approximately 6,950 plaintiffs had cases pending in coordinated Massachusetts state court proceedings, while another 500 had claims in Minnesota state court.
Medtronic also reported approximately 1,875 cases in the federal Covidien hernia mesh MDL in the District of Massachusetts, along with fewer than 10 cases pending in other courts.
The company said plaintiffs’ attorneys had indicated that additional lawsuits could be filed. Medtronic had not recorded an expense for potential damages because it said any loss was not yet probable and reasonably estimable.
The filing also states that nearly all of the hernia mesh products involved in the litigation had not been subject to recalls, withdrawals or other adverse regulatory action.
Three new product liability lawsuits have been filed against Covidien LP and Sofradim Production SAS in the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts, adding to the federal Covidien hernia mesh litigation.
The new cases include Jones v. Covidien, No. 1:25-cv-11702, filed by Paul Jones on June 11; Demuth v. Covidien, No. 1:25-cv-11718, filed by Vitina Demuth on June 12; and Roybal v. Covidien, No. 1:25-cv-11722, filed by Marvin K. Roybal on June 12.
All three cases were filed directly into MDL No. 3029 and assigned to U.S. District Judge Patti B. Saris.
The broader litigation involves allegations that certain Covidien surgical mesh products were defectively designed and caused complications following hernia repair procedures. Publicly available docket summaries do not identify the specific mesh products or injuries alleged in these three cases.
The filings show that additional claims continued to enter the MDL while the parties prepared bellwether cases for trial.
Two lawsuits involving Covidien’s Parietex Optimized Composite, or PCOx, hernia mesh have been selected to proceed through bellwether discovery in MDL No. 3029.
The parties selected Wardell v. Covidien and Baisden v. Covidien on April 22. Both cases involve allegations of injuries associated with Parietex PCOx mesh.
Judge Patti B. Saris subsequently established a case-specific discovery schedule for the two lawsuits. One of the cases is expected to be selected later as a bellwether trial involving Parietex PCOx mesh, but no trial date has been set.
The PCOx cases are separate from the previously selected Symbotex bellwethers involving Larry Patterson and Regina Stephen, allowing the litigation to examine claims involving different Covidien mesh products.
A second bellwether trial in the federal Covidien hernia mesh litigation has been scheduled to begin July 13, 2026.
The case, Stephen v. Covidien, involves Mississippi plaintiff Regina Stephen, who alleges that a Symbotex hernia mesh implant caused significant adhesions, chronic pain, bowel problems and other complications requiring additional surgery.
Judge Patti B. Saris scheduled the trial in the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts. At the time, Patterson v. Covidien, another Symbotex case, was scheduled to serve as the first bellwether trial beginning February 17, 2026.
The two cases are part of MDL No. 3029, which includes allegations involving Covidien products such as Symbotex, Parietex and ProGrip mesh.
Bellwether verdicts do not determine the outcomes of other lawsuits, but the trials can provide the parties with information about how juries evaluate common evidence and liability theories in the litigation.
A federal judge has established discovery and expert deadlines for two cases involving Covidien’s Parietex Optimized Composite, or PCOx, hernia mesh.
Judge Patti B. Saris entered Case Management Order No. 16 on May 5 in MDL No. 3029, setting a schedule for Wardell v. Covidien and Baisden v. Covidien.
The parties selected the two lawsuits on April 22 to proceed through bellwether discovery. Under the order, case-specific fact discovery must be completed by October 17, 2025, with plaintiffs’ expert reports due December 1 and defense expert reports due January 9, 2026.
Expert discovery is scheduled to conclude February 9, 2026. Dispositive motions and challenges to expert testimony are due April 6, followed by opposition and reply deadlines in May.
The order does not set a trial date for either PCOx case.
The first bellwether trial in the federal Covidien hernia mesh litigation has been scheduled to begin February 17, 2026, in the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts.
The trial will involve Patterson v. Covidien, in which plaintiff Larry Patterson alleges that Symbotex hernia mesh adhered to his bowel and caused an intestinal obstruction and recurrent hernia requiring additional surgery.
U.S. District Judge Patti B. Saris entered the trial scheduling order on April 8. A final pretrial conference is scheduled for February 4, 2026.
The case is part of MDL No. 3029, which includes claims involving Covidien products such as Symbotex, Parietex and ProGrip mesh. The bellwether trial will allow the parties to evaluate how a jury responds to evidence and arguments that may also arise in other cases.
New Bard hernia mesh lawsuits continue to be filed despite the broad settlement announced by Becton, Dickinson and Company in October 2024.
At least 30 cases had been added to the federal Bard hernia mesh MDL since the settlement announcement, according to an April 1 docket report.
Recent filings included a Minnesota plaintiff who alleged complications after receiving Bard 3DMax Mesh and a PerFix Plug and a Mississippi plaintiff who alleged that two Ventralex implants failed and required additional surgeries.
The cases join MDL No. 2846 before U.S. District Judge Edmund A. Sargus in the Southern District of Ohio.
Plaintiffs filing cases after July 6, 2024 are subject to additional case-specific discovery requirements under Case Management Order No. 53. Those requirements include producing relevant medical records and sworn certifications, along with expert reports addressing specific causation.
The October 2024 settlement is expected to resolve a substantial portion of the Bard litigation, but some newly filed and non-settling claims continue through the federal proceedings.
Attorneys representing plaintiffs and Covidien have scheduled in-person mediation as part of ongoing efforts to potentially resolve the federal hernia mesh litigation.
According to a March 11 joint status report, the parties agreed to meet with a mediator on March 31, April 1, April 2 or April 4 to discuss a possible resolution of the lawsuits.
At the time, 1,677 Covidien hernia mesh cases were pending in MDL No. 3029 before U.S. District Judge Patti B. Saris in the District of Massachusetts. Plaintiffs allege that products including Parietex and Symbotex mesh caused complications such as chronic pain and injuries requiring additional surgery.
The parties continued preparing bellwether cases while pursuing mediation. No settlement agreement had been announced, and the court had not yet set a trial date.
Technical problems with the settlement claims portal have led to an extension of the deadline for some Bard hernia mesh claimants to submit medical records and other documentation.
Becton, Dickinson and Company announced a broad agreement in October 2024 to resolve tens of thousands of Bard hernia mesh claims. In December, the federal court overseeing MDL No. 2846 established a qualified settlement fund to administer payments to eligible settling claimants.
By February, technical problems with the Crosslink settlement portal had disrupted the documentation process and led to an extension of the original March 17 submission deadline.
The Bard MDL remained substantial, with 24,102 cases pending as of February 3. Administration of individual settlement claims was continuing while the court maintained a limited stay over much of the federal litigation.
Attorneys representing plaintiffs and Covidien are moving toward formal settlement discussions in the federal Covidien hernia mesh litigation.
The parties told the court that they expected to identify a mediator by February 24 to assist with negotiations involving MDL No. 3029, which had 1,660 pending cases as of February 3.
The litigation is pending before U.S. District Judge Patti B. Saris in Massachusetts and involves claims that Covidien hernia mesh products caused complications including chronic pain and injuries requiring additional surgery.
Mediation will proceed alongside continued preparation of bellwether cases. No settlement agreement had been reached, and the parties continued litigating the cases while exploring a potential broader resolution.
On January 28, 2025, Randy Kroll filed a new product liability lawsuit against Covidien L.P. and Sofradim Production SAS in the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts.
The case, Kroll v. Covidien L.P. et al., No. 1:25-cv-10210, was filed directly into the Covidien hernia mesh multidistrict litigation, MDL No. 3029, before Judge Patti B. Saris.
The broader litigation involves allegations that certain Covidien surgical mesh products were defectively designed and caused complications after hernia repair procedures.
Kroll’s filing added another individual product liability claim to the coordinated federal proceedings.
Patients may qualify for a lawsuit when complications after hernia mesh surgery are documented in medical records and can be connected to the implanted device.
Relevant injuries may include bowel obstruction, infection, chronic pain, mesh migration, recurrent hernia, or complications requiring revision surgery. Eligibility also depends on the manufacturer, implant date, treatment history, and applicable filing deadline.
Hernia mesh lawsuits have been filed against Bard, Covidien, Ethicon, and Atrium Medical Corp.
The Bard hernia mesh MDL coordinated thousands of claims before BD reached a 2024 settlement agreement structured to resolve the vast majority of its existing federal and Rhode Island hernia litigation.
The Covidien hernia mesh MDL remains active, while earlier cases involved Ethicon Physiomesh and Atrium C-QUR products.
Pending hernia mesh lawsuits generally allege that a faulty hernia mesh caused serious injuries or that manufacturers failed to provide adequate warnings.
A claim is typically stronger when operative reports, revision findings, and other medical records document the product and resulting injury.
TorHoerman Law is currently reviewing qualifying Covidien hernia mesh cases.
TorHoerman Law is currently reviewing claims from patients who suffered documented injuries after receiving certain Covidien hernia mesh products.
Current case criteria generally include the following:
Qualifying injuries may include bowel obstruction, adhesions, infection, recurrent hernia, chronic pain, mesh migration, or internal tissue damage.
Revision records may also document that the hernia mesh failed, contracted, degraded, or adhered to nearby organs.
These findings can help attorneys evaluate claims involving allegedly defective mesh implants.
The Covidien hernia mesh MDL coordinates similar lawsuits in federal court through shared discovery, pretrial motions, and case-management procedures.
As of August 3, 2026, 2,449 lawsuits were pending in the federal proceeding.
The first Covidien bellwether trial began in July 2026 and concluded on August 4, 2026, when a Massachusetts federal jury awarded $88 million to a patient and his wife.
The lawsuit alleged that Symbotex mesh adhered to the patient’s bowel, caused an obstruction, and required extensive revision surgery.
Covidien disputed that the product caused his injuries and stated that it plans to challenge the verdict.
Bellwether trials test representative claims and provide both sides with information about how juries may evaluate common evidence.
Their outcomes can affect settlement discussions and litigation strategy, but one verdict does not determine the value or outcome of another Covidien hernia mesh lawsuit.
The original operative report usually identifies the manufacturer, product name, model number, and lot number of the implanted mesh.
Patients may also find this information on an implant card, product sticker, hospital implant log, surgeon’s records, or revision surgery report.
These records can show whether the repair involved synthetic mesh or biologic mesh and whether the product has been named in litigation involving defective hernia mesh devices.
A hernia mesh attorney can request missing records and confirm the specific device used during surgery.
Surgical mesh reinforces weakened tissue and can reduce the risk of recurrence after abdominal wall hernia repair.
Complications may develop when the surrounding tissue responds poorly to the implant, bacteria colonize the mesh, fixation points fail, or the device changes position or shape.
Medical literature identifies shrinkage, detachment, and migration as mechanical forms of mesh failure that can compromise the repair.
Adhesions may bind the mesh to the bowel or other abdominal structures, increasing the risk of obstruction, erosion, or fistula formation.
Persistent abdominal pain, fever, digestive problems, swelling, or a recurrent bulge should be evaluated by a physician, although these symptoms do not establish that the mesh was defective.
Patients have reported the following complications and severe injuries, some of which may require additional surgery:
Some complications develop shortly after surgery, while chronic pain, migration, erosion, and recurrent hernia may become apparent months or years later.
Physicians may use a physical examination, imaging studies, laboratory testing, and operative findings to determine the source of the patient’s symptoms.
Medical experts may use these records to distinguish a possible product failure from complications caused by the surgical procedure, the patient’s underlying condition, or other clinical factors.
Hernia revision surgery may be necessary when mesh infection, migration, erosion, bowel involvement, recurrent hernia, or persistent pain cannot be managed through less invasive treatment.
The surgeon may remove part or all of the implant, release adhesions, repair damaged tissue, treat an infection, or reconstruct the weakened abdominal wall.
Mesh removal is not appropriate for every patient, and the recommended procedure depends on the mesh location, the surrounding scar tissue, the cause of the symptoms, and the risk of further injury.
Reoperative surgery can be more difficult because the implant may be incorporated into tissue or attached to nerves, blood vessels, the bowel, or other organs.
Patients should discuss persistent pain, fever, drainage, digestive symptoms, or a recurrent bulge with a qualified surgeon.
Imaging, laboratory testing, and prior operative records may help determine whether the mesh contributed to the complication and whether removal is medically appropriate.
The revision operative report can also document infection, adhesions, migration, degradation, or organ damage that may support a hernia mesh injury claim.
Lawsuits have been filed against several hernia mesh companies after patients alleged that implanted products caused chronic pain, infection, adhesions, bowel injuries, migration, or recurrent hernias.
The claims generally assert defective design, manufacturing defects, inadequate warnings, or a combination of these theories.
Because manufacturers used different materials, coatings, barriers, and fixation systems, the cases have been organized by company and product family rather than treated as one unified lawsuit.
Federal multidistrict litigation has allowed courts to coordinate discovery, expert evidence, and pretrial motions while preserving each plaintiff’s individual claim.
The manufacturers and product families named in major hernia mesh proceedings include the following:
Hernia mesh cases may conclude through an individual settlement, a coordinated settlement program, a jury verdict, or dismissal.
A hernia mesh bellwether trial selects an individual claim for trial after coordinated discovery, allowing the parties to evaluate how a jury responds to recurring evidence and legal arguments.
A hernia mesh test trial does not determine the outcome of other lawsuits, but the result may affect litigation strategy and settlement negotiations.
The first Covidien bellwether trial began in July 2026 and concluded on August 4, 2026.
A federal jury awarded Larry and Tammy Patterson $88 million after finding that Covidien failed to provide an adequate warning about the Symbotex mesh implanted during his hernia repair.
The jury did not award punitive damages or find that Covidien committed fraud, and Medtronic stated that it would challenge the hernia mesh verdict through post-trial motions and an appeal.
Becton, Dickinson and Company announced a separate agreement in October 2024 to resolve the vast majority of existing litigation involving Bard and Davol hernia mesh products.
The agreement covers cases in the federal Bard multidistrict litigation and Rhode Island state-court proceedings, but its financial terms remain confidential.
BD made no admission of liability and continues to contest claims excluded from the settlement.
Published hernia mesh verdicts should not be treated as average settlement amounts or reliable forecasts of compensation.
Each claim depends on the implanted product, the medical evidence connecting the mesh to the injury, the need for revision surgery, the extent of permanent harm, and the law governing the case.
Compensation may address medical expenses, lost income, pain, physical impairment, and other documented losses, but no verdict or settlement from another lawsuit can establish what an individual plaintiff will recover.
Lawyers estimate that hernia mesh lawsuit settlement amounts may range from $50,000 to $100,000 or more.
This estimate is not based on a public settlement schedule and does not predict the value of an individual claim.
Major hernia mesh settlement terms are often confidential, and compensation may fall below or exceed this range.
Case value depends on the implanted product, the severity of the injury, revision surgery, bowel or organ damage, medical expenses, lost income, permanent impairment, and the evidence connecting the mesh to the patient’s condition.
Claims involving multiple corrective procedures, bowel resection, permanent disability, or substantial future medical care may receive greater compensation than cases involving limited treatment or temporary symptoms.
A hernia mesh claim requires a detailed review of the implanted product, medical history, complications, and corrective treatment.
Experienced hernia mesh lawyers can obtain operative reports, identify the manufacturer, and examine whether revision findings support a connection between the device and the injury.
This review may include records documenting mesh migration, infection, bowel damage, chronic pain, recurrent hernia, or surgical removal.
Attorneys also determine which court should hear the claim and whether the applicable filing deadline has passed.
Filing cases against medical device manufacturers may require coordinated discovery, expert testimony, and evidence specific to the product involved.
A lawyer can document medical expenses, lost income, physical impairment, and other losses that may affect compensation.
TorHoerman Law offers free consultations to patients and families seeking a review of a potential hernia mesh claim.
Reach out today to find out if you qualify for a hernia mesh lawsuit.
Evidence helps connect the implanted mesh to the patient’s injuries and later medical treatment.
Records can identify the manufacturer, show when symptoms began, and document whether additional surgery was required.
Strong evidence also helps distinguish a possible device failure from complications caused by another medical condition or the original procedure.
The following materials may support a hernia mesh claim:
Damages in defective medical device lawsuits represent the financial and personal losses caused by an injury.
Lawyers review medical records, employment documents, treatment costs, and the long-term effects of the condition to calculate the value of a claim.
They also consider whether the patient required revision surgery, suffered permanent impairment, or faces future medical care.
This evidence supports a demand for compensation that may include the following damages:
The deadline to file a hernia mesh lawsuit depends on the statute of limitations in the state where the claim is brought.
Some states apply a discovery rule that may begin the filing period when the patient knew or reasonably should have known that the mesh may have caused the injury.
Implant dates, symptom onset, revision surgery, and product identification can all affect the deadline.
Contact a lawyer for a free case evaluation to determine eligibility and whether time remains to file a claim.
TorHoerman Law represents patients who suffered serious complications after receiving allegedly defective hernia mesh products.
Our hernia mesh lawsuit lawyers review implant records, revision reports, medical treatment, and the full history of each injury.
THL is currently evaluating qualifying Covidien claims involving revision surgery and documented mesh-related harm.
Our legal team also tracks hernia mesh updates that may affect pending cases, filing strategy, and settlement discussions.
There are no upfront legal fees, and clients pay nothing unless compensation is recovered.
Contact TorHoerman Law today for a free, confidential case review.
Tor Hoerman has represented injured individuals for more than 30 years, with experience spanning individual personal injury cases and nationwide mass tort litigation. His work includes car accidents, catastrophic injuries, product liability claims, and other serious injury cases. Tor has served in court-appointed leadership roles in national litigation and tried cases involving major corporate defendants.
TorHoerman Law’s legal content is researched and written by our editorial team and attorneys for legal accuracy, clarity, and relevance. We rely on statutes, court records, government publications, medical research, and other authoritative sources when applicable. This page provides general legal information and does not constitute legal advice.
TorHoerman Law reviews its legal content for factual accuracy, current information, and relevant legal context before publication and as material developments occur. This article is provided for general informational purposes and does not constitute legal advice. For guidance about a specific case, contact TorHoerman Law.
You can learn more about this topic by visiting any of our Hernia Mesh Lawsuit pages listed below:
A serious injury can change your life.
TorHoerman Law represents people whose lives have been disrupted by serious injuries, unsafe products, and negligence. Our attorneys handle individual personal injury cases as well as national mass tort lawsuits involving major corporations.
Founded in 2009, our legal team brings more than 100 years of combined experience handling serious injury and complex civil litigation.
Do you believe you’re entitled to compensation?
Use our Instant Case Evaluator to find out in as little as 60 seconds!
In this case, we obtained a verdict of $495 Million for our client’s child who was diagnosed with Necrotizing Enterocolitis after consuming baby formula manufactured by Abbott Laboratories.
In this case, we were able to successfully recover $20 Million for our client after they suffered a Toxic Tort Injury due to chemical exposure.
In this case, we were able to successfully recover $103.8 Million for our client after they suffered a COX-2 Inhibitors Injury.
In this case, we were able to successfully recover $4 Million for our client after they suffered a Traumatic Brain Injury while at daycare.
In this case, we were able to successfully recover $2.8 Million for our client after they suffered an injury due to a Defective Heart Device.
A serious injury can change your life.