Hernia Mesh Lawsuit 2026: Bard MDL 2846 & $1B Settlement

Certain polypropylene hernia mesh devices, especially those made by C.R. Bard and its Davol subsidiary, are at the center of product liability claims alleging they caused serious complications after hernia repair. The federal cases are coordinated in one of the largest multidistrict litigations in the country, and in 2024 Bard's parent company reached a large reported settlement that resolves most, but not all, of the claims. This page explains the claims, the science, the FDA record, and the current status neutrally. It is general information and attorney advertising, not legal advice, and not a statement that anyone has a claim.

This page is part of our Mass Tort & Product Liability overview.

What the hernia mesh litigation is about

Hernia mesh is a surgical implant used to reinforce tissue when repairing a hernia, and it is used in a large share of hernia operations. The lawsuits allege that certain polypropylene mesh devices were defectively designed and inadequately tested, and that the manufacturers failed to warn patients and surgeons adequately, causing complications after implantation. The largest federal litigation focuses on devices made by C.R. Bard and its Davol subsidiary, including product lines named in the cases such as the Ventralex, PerFix Plug, 3DMax, and Composix devices. When the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation centralized the cases in 2018, it described the shared allegations as defects that can lead to complications including adhesions, organ damage, inflammatory and allergic responses, and rejection of the device. These are allegations plaintiffs must prove, and the manufacturers have not admitted wrongdoing.

Note: These are allegations being tested in court. Many hernia mesh repairs are uneventful, and a complication after surgery does not by itself establish that a device was defective or that any manufacturer is liable.

The alleged injuries

The complications alleged in the litigation, and listed by the FDA as adverse events associated with hernia mesh repair, include infection, chronic pain, adhesions (scar tissue that can make organs stick together), bowel obstruction, and perforation of nearby tissue or organs. Plaintiffs also allege mesh migration and shrinkage, in which the device moves or contracts away from the repair site, and erosion, in which the mesh works its way into adjacent tissue such as the bowel or bladder. Some allege an abnormal connection between organs called a fistula, hernia recurrence requiring another operation, or the need for revision or explant surgery to remove failed mesh, which can be technically difficult when tissue has grown into the device. The FDA has noted that many of the most serious mesh-related adverse events reported to it have been linked to mesh products that were later recalled and are no longer on the market.

What the FDA record shows

The FDA regulates surgical mesh for hernia repair as a moderate-risk device, and most hernia mesh has reached the U.S. market through the agency's 510(k) clearance pathway, which clears a device based on similarity to an existing product and generally does not require new human clinical trials. One Bard device line, the Composix Kugel hernia patch, was the subject of an FDA Class I recall, the most serious category, beginning in 2005 and expanded in 2007, because a memory recoil ring in the patch could break and potentially lead to bowel perforation or a chronic fistula. It is important not to confuse hernia mesh with a different product: in 2019 the FDA ordered transvaginal surgical mesh used for pelvic organ prolapse off the market and had reclassified it as high-risk, but that action applied to that distinct product, not to hernia mesh. The FDA has not banned hernia mesh as a category and states that mesh can reduce hernia recurrence, while it continues to monitor adverse-event reports.

Note: A device recall or an adverse-event listing reflects reports and the agency's risk assessment. It is not, by itself, proof that a device caused any individual person's injury.

The status of the litigation and the 2024 settlement (as of June 2026)

The federal cases are consolidated in MDL No. 2846 in the Southern District of Ohio before Judge Edmund A. Sargus, Jr., and as of mid-2026 more than 23,000 cases remained pending, making it one of the largest MDLs in the country, with the count gradually declining month over month. In October 2024, Bard's parent company, Becton Dickinson, reached a reported aggregate settlement exceeding $1 billion that, according to reporting, resolves the vast majority of the more than 38,000 Bard hernia mesh claims across both the Ohio MDL and the coordinated Rhode Island state-court cases. The company did not publicly disclose the exact total or the per-claimant terms, and it indicated it would continue to defend against claimants who decline to participate. This is a private aggregate settlement rather than a court-approved class action, participation is optional, and payouts were reported to be spread over a period of less than five years, which is why the MDL remains open even after the agreement.

Bellwether trials

To test how juries respond, the court tried a small set of representative bellwether cases, and the results were mixed. The first MDL bellwether ended in a defense verdict in 2021, while plaintiffs won the next two, a verdict of about $255,000 in 2022 and a $500,000 verdict on a failure-to-warn theory in 2023. Separately, a Rhode Island state-court jury, in a case outside the federal MDL, returned a larger plaintiff verdict reported at about $4.8 million in 2022. Bellwether and state-court results are influential signals that often shape settlement negotiations, but they are specific to the cases tried and do not set the value of any other case. A string of mixed results like this is part of what typically precedes an aggregate settlement.

Who may be involved

The people generally involved in this litigation are those who were implanted with a polypropylene hernia mesh device, particularly a Bard or Davol device, and who later experienced complications such as chronic pain, infection, adhesions, bowel obstruction or perforation, mesh migration or erosion, hernia recurrence, or who needed revision or explant surgery. Whether any particular person may have a claim depends on the specific facts, including which device was implanted and when, the nature and timing of the complication, the medical records connecting the two, whether an aggregate settlement program is still accepting claims, and the law of the relevant state. Having a hernia mesh implant alone does not establish a claim, and nothing here suggests that every patient has one or that any outcome is assured.

Deadlines and why they matter

Claims like these are subject to statutes of limitations, the legal deadlines to file suit, which vary by state and by the type of claim, commonly in the range of two to three years but ranging more widely. Many states measure the deadline from when a person knew or reasonably should have known that an injury was linked to the mesh, a concept called the discovery rule, rather than from the implant date. Because the Bard settlement and the MDL are in late stages, timing is especially important: in addition to the statute of limitations, a settlement program can have its own registration cutoffs. There is no single national deadline, and this page does not state any individual's deadline. A licensed attorney in the relevant state can determine what applies and whether any settlement deadline is still open.

How to evaluate your options

If you are trying to understand your legal options, the appropriate step is to speak with a licensed attorney who handles this type of case. An attorney can assess the facts, explain the law in your state, and advise whether you may have a claim or whether a settlement program is still open, which this page cannot do. It helps to gather any records you have, such as the operative report or implant records identifying the specific device, your medical records documenting the complication and any revision surgery, and the relevant dates. Most mass tort and personal injury attorneys offer a free, confidential consultation and work on a contingency basis, meaning a fee is generally owed only if there is a recovery. A consultation creates no obligation.