What Is an MDL and How Does It Work?
A multidistrict litigation (MDL) is a procedural mechanism under 28 U.S.C. § 1407 that allows the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation to transfer cases involving common questions of fact to a single federal district for coordinated pre-trial proceedings. MDLs are not class actions — each plaintiff retains an individual case with individual damages. The MDL court coordinates discovery, decides common legal issues through bellwether trials, and facilitates global settlement negotiations. Cases that do not settle are eventually remanded to their home districts for individual trials.
MDL 2846 — Formation, Growth, and Structure
MDL 2846, styled In re: Davol Inc./C.R. Bard, Inc., Polypropylene Hernia Mesh Products Liability Litigation, was established by the JPML in April 2018 and assigned to Judge Edmund A. Sargus Jr. in the Southern District of Ohio, Columbus Division. A Plaintiff Steering Committee (PSC) of experienced mass tort attorneys was appointed to lead discovery, retain experts, and manage bellwether trial selection. Bard defense counsel works with the PSC through Case Management Orders (CMOs) that govern the litigation schedule. Centralized discovery has produced over 30 million pages of Bard corporate documents.
Bellwether Trials — How They Affect Your Case
Bellwether trials are representative cases selected by the court and tried to verdict to test the strength of plaintiff and defense theories, evaluate the persuasiveness of expert witnesses, and produce data points that inform global settlement negotiations. Bellwether outcomes — both plaintiff and defense verdicts — tell both sides what a jury might award across a range of case types. Plaintiff verdicts in MDL 2846 bellwether trials have ranged from $450,000 to over $5 million including punitive damages. Each bellwether outcome influences the settlement grid values applied to individual claims.
What You Must Do as an MDL Claimant
Every MDL 2846 claimant must complete a Plaintiff Fact Sheet (PFS) — a detailed questionnaire identifying the mesh product, implanting surgeon, all treating physicians, all hospitalizations, all imaging studies, and a description of injuries. The PFS must be served within a specific deadline after the complaint is filed. Failure to complete the PFS can result in case dismissal for failure to comply with MDL orders. Claimants must also produce all medical records responsive to the PFS. Your attorney manages these obligations, but claimants must be responsive to attorney requests for information and document authorizations.
Frequently Asked Questions
Related Pages
Davol and C.R. Bard Hernia Mesh Products
Davol Inc. and its parent C.R. Bard (now Becton Dickinson) manufactured the largest portfolio of recalled and litigation-linked hernia mesh products in the United States. Products including 3DMax, Ventralex ST, and the recalled Composix Kugel are at the center of MDL 2846 — one of the largest active medical device MDLs in federal court.
Hernia Mesh Infection Claims
Hernia mesh infection is a devastating complication because bacteria colonize the mesh material in treatment-resistant biofilms, usually requiring complete surgical removal. Mesh design characteristics — including pore size, material composition, and surface coatings — directly affect infection susceptibility, creating strong product liability theories.
Hernia Mesh Settlements — What to Expect
Hernia mesh mass tort settlements are structured as tiered grids based on injury severity, number of revision surgeries, and individual case factors. Understanding how settlement grids work and what factors increase your tier placement helps you evaluate your claim and avoid accepting inadequate offers.
Hernia Mesh Evidence — Building Your Claim
A strong hernia mesh claim rests on three evidentiary pillars: confirmed product identification (which specific mesh was implanted), documented complications in medical records, and expert opinions causally linking the mesh to the injuries. Gathering and preserving this evidence from the moment complications are identified is the single most important step a potential claimant can take.
Ethicon and Johnson and Johnson Hernia Mesh
Ethicon, a Johnson and Johnson subsidiary, manufactured the Physiomesh Flexible Composite — voluntarily withdrawn from global markets in May 2016 after independent registry data revealed reoperation rates two to three times higher than comparator meshes. Ethicon Physiomesh and related product claims are consolidated in MDL 2753 in the District of New Jersey and MCL 616 in New Jersey Superior Court.
Hernia Mesh Complications — What Can Go Wrong
Defective hernia mesh can cause a spectrum of complications from painful but treatable infections to catastrophic bowel perforation and sepsis. Understanding which complications are associated with mesh defects — versus routine surgical risks — is essential for evaluating whether a legal claim exists.
Hernia Mesh Revision Surgery — What It Involves
Hernia mesh revision surgery — including adhesiolysis, partial mesh removal, and complete explantation — is a significantly more complex and dangerous operation than the original hernia repair. The risks, costs, and recovery demands of revision surgery are core elements of damages in hernia mesh litigation.
Hernia Mesh Recall History — What the FDA Found
The FDA has issued safety communications, ordered 522 post-market surveillance studies, and presided over multiple hernia mesh recalls. The regulatory history establishes that manufacturers had notice of mesh complications well before many patients were implanted — a critical element of failure-to-warn and design defect claims.
Inguinal Hernia Mesh Claims
Inguinal hernia mesh repairs are the most common hernia surgery in the United States, accounting for approximately 800,000 procedures annually. The inguinal region's proximity to critical nerves and spermatic cord structures makes mesh complications in this location particularly likely to cause chronic, debilitating pain.
Ventral Hernia Mesh Claims
Ventral hernias — including incisional hernias following prior abdominal surgeries — are typically repaired with large sheets of synthetic mesh placed intra-abdominally or in the retromuscular space. The large surface area of ventral mesh in contact with bowel creates significant risk of adhesion, migration, and bowel obstruction.
Hernia Mesh Chronic Pain — Inguinodynia Claims
Chronic groin pain (inguinodynia) following hernia mesh repair affects an estimated 10 to 30 percent of patients in some surgical registry studies and is the most common basis for hernia mesh legal claims. Nerve entrapment by mesh fixation devices and mesh contracture are the primary mechanisms. Chronic pain claims are legally cognizable even without revision surgery.
Hernia Mesh (Davol/C.R. Bard) Lawsuit
Hernia mesh litigation is one of the largest ongoing mass tort actions in the United States. Polypropylene mesh devices implanted during inguinal, ventral, and incisional hernia repairs have been associated with a pattern of serious defects — including mesh shrinkage, migration, erosion into adjacent organs, bacterial colonization, and nerve entrapment — that manufacturers knew about for years before disclosing to physicians or patients. The primary defendants include Davol Inc. and its parent C.R. Bard (now part of Becton Dickinson), Ethicon (a Johnson and Johnson subsidiary), Atrium Medical, and Covidien (now part of Medtronic). The federal multidistrict litigation MDL 2846 in the Southern District of Ohio has consolidated thousands of Davol/C.R. Bard claims for coordinated pre-trial proceedings. Separately, Ethicon mesh cases are coordinated in New Jersey Superior Court (MCL 616). Patients who underwent hernia repair surgery and subsequently experienced complications are urged to seek legal evaluation immediately — statutes of limitations are running and evidence must be preserved.
View full case overview