Thousands of patients have filed injury lawsuits against Covidien and C.R. Bard over serious complications from defective hernia mesh implants. Our firm represents patients in these cases and has developed a deep understanding of the medical and legal issues involved.
While Ethicon, Atrium, and other manufacturers have settled their hernia mesh lawsuits, Covidien has not. Only Covidien and certain Bard cases remain active in 2025.
June 2025 Update
Covidien Cases in Active Litigation
Lawsuits involving Covidien’s Parietex polyester mesh products continue in federal and state courts. As of June 2025, approximately 1,863 lawsuits against Covidien are consolidated in federal multidistrict litigation (MDL No. 3029) in Massachusetts. Over 6,000 additional cases are filed in Massachusetts state court, with 500 more in Minnesota state court, where Medtronic (Covidien’s parent company) is headquartered.
The MDL, overseen by Judge Patti B. Saris, has progressed through discovery, with nearly 2 million documents produced and dozens of Covidien witnesses deposed. In April 2025, Judge Saris ordered Covidien to disclose its marketing and promotional spending, noting that this could reveal the “motive and reasoning” behind alleged safety misrepresentations.
Key dates:
- Mediation deadline: September 22, 2025. Mediation sessions were held in the Spring of 2025, though no settlement has been announced
- Fact discovery deadline: October 17, 2025 (for PCOx cases)
Bellwether trials:
- First trial: Patterson v. Covidien (Symbotex mesh) – February 17, 2026, with pretrial conference February 4, 2026
- Second trial: Regina Stephen v. Covidien (Symbotex mesh) – July 13, 2026, with pretrial conference June 25, 2026
- Third bellwether pool: Michael Wardell v. Covidien and Maria Baisden v. Covidien (PCOx mesh) – one will be selected for trial.
These bellwether trials will shape future settlement discussions.
Covidien Parietex Mesh Design Defects
Covidien introduced Parietex surgical mesh for ventral hernia repair in 1999. The company chose polyester fabric instead of polypropylene, which is typically used in most hernia meshes.
Parietex received FDA clearance through the 510(k) process, meaning Covidien avoided human clinical trials before marketing the product.
Patients later reported severe complications with Parietex. Covidien allegedly failed to warn surgeons and patients about known risks.
The polyester-based design of Parietex is problematic. Unlike polypropylene, polyester is not chemically inert in the body. It can shrink significantly after implantation, and its fibers can unravel. These polyester fibers may stiffen and harden, turning the mesh rigid. The material also weakens and degrades more quickly than expected, potentially leading to tearing or loss of structural integrity, which can result in hernia repair failure.
Plaintiffs allege polyester mesh causes greater degradation, higher rates of chronic infection, excessive shrinkage, and premature breakdown of protective collagen barriers.
Covidien’s Parietex products feature “anti-adhesion” coatings, but these reportedly fail to function as intended. The collagen barrier absorbs too quickly, exposing the mesh, which can cause adhesions to internal organs.
Covidien Recalls and Regulatory History
Covidien recalled 7,333 units of Parietex Composite Parastomal Mesh in October 2018 due to manufacturing issues.
The company recalled 129 units of Hydrophilic Anatomical Mesh in January 2021 for mislabeling.
In February 2023, the FDA recalled Covidien’s Parietex Composite Mesh Polyester with Absorbable Collagen Film, Horseshoe-Shaped (model PCO2H3).
Plaintiffs’ attorneys argue that these limited recalls show Covidien’s reluctance to acknowledge broader design issues.
Covidien Parietex Products at Issue
Covidien hernia mesh products in litigation include:
- Parietex Composite (PCO) Mesh
- Parietex Composite Mono PM Mesh
- Parietex Composite PCO-OS (Open Skirt) Mesh
- Parietex Composite PCO-OB Mesh
- Parietex Composite Ventral Patch
- Parietex Composite Parastomal Mesh
- Parietex Optimized Composite Mesh
- Parietex Optimized Open Skirt Mesh
- Parietex ProGrip Self-Fixating Mesh
- Parietex ProGrip Laparoscopic
- Parietex Lightweight Monofilament Mesh
- Parietex Monofilament Polyester Mesh
- Parietex Plug and Patch System
- Symbotex Composite Mesh (first bellwether trial)
- Parietene DS Composite Mesh (polypropylene)
- Parietene Polypropylene Mesh
- Parietene ProGrip Mesh
- SurgiPro and SurgiPro Plug & Patch
- Dextile Anatomical Mesh
Bard Hernia Mesh Design Defects
Bard’s hernia mesh products use medical-grade polypropylene, a plastic that can degrade inside the human body. The mesh may shrink, harden, and become brittle after implantation.
The shrinking mesh may buckle, fold, or warp out of its intended shape. The Bard 3DMax mesh, pre-shaped for the groin, may lose its shape and fold over after implantation. This folding causes the mesh to ball up or migrate, requiring removal surgery.
Bard marketed design “innovations” that created new failure modes. Bard’s meshes had rough, cut edges that could fray. Bard developed products with sealed or stitched outer rims to create a smooth edge. These stitched rims reportedly detach or unravel, leaving sharp, frayed edges that can cause injury inside patients.
In inguinal hernia repairs, cases have shown mesh migration into the spermatic cords of men, entangling critical groin structures. Surgical removal has sometimes resulted in testicular removal (orchiectomy).
The Composix Kugel Patch had a memory recoil ring prone to breaking. Bard’s Kugel mesh was recalled in 2005 after patients suffered bowel perforations from broken ring pieces.
Polypropylene mesh can also induce chronic inflammation and scar tissue, leading to the mesh becoming embedded in organs. This can lead to organ damage, fistula formation, or infection.
Bard Settlement
Bard faced over 30,000 hernia mesh lawsuits in federal court. Several bellwether trials tested plaintiffs’ claims.
In 2022, a jury found Bard’s Ventralex mesh defectively designed and awarded $255,000 in damages. In another 2022 trial, a Rhode Island jury awarded a $4.8 million verdict in a case involving Ventralex mesh.
Evidence at trial showed that a former Bard Vice President wrote disturbing emails regarding polypropylene sourcing:
Most of Bard’s raw polypropylene was sourced from Chevron Phillips, who prohibited their raw polypropylene from being used in products that would be permanently implanted in humans.”
Because Chevron Phillips would stop sales if it knew the material was being implanted in people, the VP wrote:
It is likely they [Chevron Phillips] do not know of our implant application. Please do not mention Davol’s name in any discussion with these manufacturers.”
Facing more trials, Bard’s parent company announced a settlement of 38,000-40,000 claims in October 2024, accompanied by a financial charge of $1.7 billion.
The Bard litigation has entered a complex phase of resolution. As of May 2025, over 24,000 cases remain active. New lawsuits continued to be filed after the settlement announcement, with over 400 new plaintiffs joining in April 2025.
The court established a Qualified Settlement Fund (QSF) in January 2025. The settlement uses a tiered payment structure:
- Quick-Pay 1: For those without qualifying injuries
- Quick-Pay 2: For mild to moderate injuries
- Traditional Pay: For the most severe injuries
Special Masters Ellen K. Reisman and John Jackson oversee an Intensive Settlement Process (ISP) for remaining claims, expected to run through 2029.
Bard Products at Issue
Bard hernia mesh products in litigation include:
- Bard 3DMax and 3DMax Light Mesh
- Bard Ventralex Hernia Patch
- Bard Ventralex ST
- Bard Composix Kugel Mesh and Hernia Patch
- Bard Composix E/X Mesh
- Bard Composix L/P Mesh
- Bard PerFix and PerFix Light Plug
- Bard SepraMesh IP Composite Mesh
- Bard Modified Kugel Patch
- Bard Soft Mesh
- Bard Dulex Mesh
- Bard Ventrio ST
- Bard Ventralight ST
- Bard CK Parastomal Hernia Patch
- Bard CruraSoft Patch
Common Hernia Mesh Complications
Patients with defective hernia mesh report painful complications. These problems often emerge months or years after surgery once the mesh fails.
Common complications include chronic pain in the abdomen, groin, or leg, stiffness, pulling, or foreign body sensation, and recurring infections that don’t respond to antibiotics, including sepsis.
Complications also include adhesions that cause the mesh to stick to the intestines, mesh migration, bowel obstruction or perforation, mesh failure, and mesh erosion into adjacent organs. Patients experience seromas (fluid accumulation around the mesh), nerve damage, and digestive issues and may require revision surgery.
The delayed onset of problems makes it challenging to associate symptoms with the mesh. A severe infection or bowel obstruction requires emergency surgery. If mesh erodes into organs, removal becomes a complex process. Surgeons may need to remove the intestine along with the mesh.
Impact on Patients’ Lives
Complications include recurring infections and severe bowel obstructions that can be life-threatening. When mesh erodes into internal organs, removal may require partial organ removal.
Patients report chronic pain, inability to work, and significant financial burdens from medical bills and lost wages.
Compensation for Defective Hernia Mesh
If you’ve undergone revision surgery due to complications from Covidien Parietex or Bard hernia mesh, you may be entitled to compensation. Many patients have discovered that defective mesh products caused their pain, infections, or other serious health issues.
These are not routine surgical outcomes. Covidien and Bard failed to adequately warn doctors and patients about known risks, including shrinkage, degradation, migration, and erosion. These cases involve claims of defective design, manufacturing flaws, and failure to warn, and the law provides a path to hold these companies accountable.
We are evaluating claims from patients who required one or more revision surgeries after receiving Covidien or Bard hernia mesh. If your experience fits, we encourage you to reach out.
Why Clients Choose Doyle APC
- 27+ Years of Product Liability Experience
Our practice focuses on holding manufacturers accountable for defective products, ranging from consumer goods and pharmaceuticals to medical implants, such as hernia mesh. - Boutique Representation, Deep Involvement
We are not a volume-based practice. We personally evaluate and litigate every case we accept. When we take on a matter, it’s because we believe in the client and are fully committed to achieving the best possible result. - Proven Track Record in Complex Cases
Our attorneys have led major class actions and complex litigation across the country, including high-stakes cases against prominent companies such as Apple, Honda, and Amazon, as well as leading device manufacturers. We’ve secured hundreds of millions of dollars for clients injured by defective products. - Sophisticated Litigation with a Human Touch
We combine advanced technology and trial-ready preparation with attentive, personal service. Clients work directly with the attorneys handling their case. - Contingency Representation
You pay nothing unless we recover compensation for you.
Do You Qualify for a Case?
We’ll review your medical records, confirm the specific mesh product involved, and assess whether your injuries are connected to a known defect.
Please note: we are a selective practice and only take on cases that meet our criteria for severity and fit. If your case qualifies, we’ll explain your options and what comes next.
Deadlines to file are limited and vary by state, sometimes as short as one year from when your injury was discovered.
It takes just minutes to get started. Your consultation is free, confidential, and handled by an attorney.
See If Your Case Qualifies