The Companies Behind Defective Hernia Mesh: Who Has Been Held Liable?

If you’ve suffered after a hernia repair, you may be wondering who’s really responsible — your surgeon, or the device itself. For thousands of patients, the answer points to the companies that designed and sold the mesh. These manufacturers have faced tens of thousands of lawsuits, sizable settlements, and ongoing trials, all tied to products that allegedly failed inside people’s bodies.

Knowing which companies have been named — and why — helps you understand where your own situation might fit. This post breaks down the major manufacturers in hernia mesh litigation, what they were accused of, and how the cases have played out.

Here’s what you’ll learn:

The four major companies named in hernia mesh lawsuits
The products and allegations tied to each one
Notable settlements and verdicts
How California product liability law applies to your claim
Why acting quickly protects your rights

Let’s start with the company at the center of it all.

C.R. Bard / Davol (Owned by Becton, Dickinson and Company)

Bard, through its subsidiary Davol, sits at the heart of hernia mesh litigation. The company has faced the largest share of claims by far — and its products appear in lawsuits across the country.

The Products

Bard’s named devices include the 3DMax, Composix Kugel, Ventralex, Ventralight ST, and PerFix Plug, among many others. These are polypropylene mesh products used to reinforce weakened tissue during hernia repair.

The Allegations

Plaintiffs allege these products were defectively designed, prone to migration, erosion, and adhesion to organs. Many claims also argue Bard failed to warn doctors and patients about known risks.

The Outcomes

Bard’s litigation has produced real results for plaintiffs:

A $4.8 million Rhode Island state court verdict
A $500,000 federal verdict involving the PerFix Plug
A $255,000 federal verdict in 2022

The biggest development came in October 2024, when parent company Becton, Dickinson and Company (BD) agreed to a confidential settlement resolving roughly 38,000 claims — reportedly valued at over $1 billion.

Takeaway: Bard accounts for the largest body of hernia mesh claims and a landmark billion-dollar settlement.

Ethicon (a Johnson & Johnson Subsidiary)

Ethicon, owned by Johnson & Johnson, faced significant litigation over its hernia mesh — most notably one product that was pulled from the market.

The Products

The central device was Physiomesh, along with the Proceed Mesh and Prolene Hernia System. Physiomesh drew particular attention after being withdrawn from the market over safety concerns.

The Allegations

Claims against Ethicon centered on design defects and failure to warn, arguing that Physiomesh had unusually high rates of recurrence and reoperation compared to other products.

The Outcomes

Ethicon resolved its litigation through confidential settlements:

In 2021, the company settled more than 3,700 Physiomesh lawsuits.
In December 2023, it resolved the roughly remaining 200 cases.

The settlement amounts were not made public, but the resolution effectively closed out the federal litigation against Ethicon.

Takeaway: Ethicon’s Physiomesh litigation ended in confidential settlements after the product drew scrutiny for high failure rates.

Covidien (Owned by Medtronic)

Covidien, now owned by Medtronic, represents the most active front in hernia mesh litigation today. Unlike Bard and Ethicon, its cases are still moving toward trial.

The Products

Named devices include the Parietex line, Parietene, ProGrip, SurgiPro, and Symbotex. Symbotex has featured prominently in recent court rulings.

The Allegations

Plaintiffs allege Covidien’s mesh products can degrade faster than advertised, triggering adhesions, bowel obstruction, hernia recurrence, and additional surgeries. A key claim is that the collagen barrier on certain products broke down within days, despite marketing suggesting it lasted up to a month — a failure-to-warn and misrepresentation theory.

The Outcomes

The Covidien MDL remains ongoing, with thousands of cases pending:

A federal judge recently denied Covidien’s motion for summary judgment, allowing key claims to proceed.
The first bellwether trial is scheduled, which could shape how the broader litigation resolves.

Because these cases are still active, patients harmed by Covidien products may still have a path forward.

Takeaway: Covidien’s litigation is ongoing, with a bellwether trial that could set the tone for thousands of pending claims.

Atrium Medical

Atrium Medical rounds out the major manufacturers, with litigation focused on a single product line.

The Products

Atrium’s claims center on its C-Qur mesh family, including the C-Qur Mesh, C-Qur Edge, and C-Qur V-Patch. These products feature a fish-oil coating that plaintiffs say contributed to complications.

The Allegations

Lawsuits allege the C-Qur coating caused inflammatory reactions, infections, and adhesions. Claims include design defects and failure to warn about these risks.

The Outcomes

Atrium’s litigation was resolved through a settlement:

In December 2021, the company set aside more than $66 million to resolve over 3,000 C-Qur claims.
A court-approved settlement fund was established to compensate injured patients.

Takeaway: Atrium’s C-Qur litigation resolved through a $66 million settlement tied to its fish-oil-coated mesh.

How California Product Liability Law Applies

Across all four manufacturers, the legal foundation is the same: a product liability claim. These cases generally rest on proving a defective product caused your injury — not on blaming your surgeon.

California recognizes a few theories that often apply to hernia mesh:

Design defect — the mesh was unreasonably dangerous because of how it was designed.
Manufacturing defect — something went wrong in producing your specific device.
Failure to warn — the manufacturer didn’t adequately disclose known risks.

Under strict liability, you often don’t have to prove the manufacturer was careless. You generally need to show the product was defective and that the defect caused your harm. That’s a meaningful advantage, because it shifts the focus to the product itself rather than anyone’s individual conduct.

Identifying the exact device — the manufacturer, model, and lot number — matters here, since liability can turn on a specific product or even a particular production batch.

Takeaway: California’s strict liability framework gives injured patients a path to hold manufacturers accountable for defective mesh.

A Composite Example: Meet Janet

Janet is not a real client. She’s a composite — a realistic blend of the kinds of cases attorneys see — created to show how identifying the right manufacturer matters.

Janet was 58 when she had a hernia repaired with surgical mesh. Roughly two years later, she developed chronic pain and a serious infection. Imaging revealed the mesh had eroded into nearby tissue, and she needed a complex removal surgery.

Here’s how her situation took shape:

Identifying the device. Her hospital records pinpointed the manufacturer, model, and lot number of her specific implant.
Connecting to known problems. That product had a documented history of adverse event reports describing the same erosion she experienced.
The legal theory. Her claim rested on a design defect and a failure-to-warn argument under California’s strict liability rules.
Acting in time. Because she had her situation reviewed promptly, her right to pursue compensation stayed intact.

No single fact carried Janet’s case. It was the combination — a specific identified product, a documented pattern of problems, and a timely claim — that gave her a credible path forward.

Takeaway: Pinpointing the responsible manufacturer is often the first and most important step in a hernia mesh claim.

The Deadline You Can’t Afford to Miss

California’s statute of limitations sets a firm time limit on filing a personal injury or product liability claim. Miss that window, and you can lose the right to pursue compensation entirely — no matter how strong your case might be.

These deadlines can get complicated. The clock may start when you discovered, or reasonably should have discovered, that the mesh caused your injury — not necessarily on the date it was implanted. That nuance is exactly why it’s wise to have your situation reviewed promptly.

Acting early also protects your evidence. Medical records, the device’s identifying details, and even portions of the explanted mesh can be lost or harder to obtain as time passes.

Try this: If you suspect hernia mesh harmed you, start gathering your records now and treat the legal clock as already running.

Takeaway: Strict deadlines apply, and they can hinge on when you discovered the harm — so acting quickly protects your claim.

Why Choose Walch Law

A hernia mesh injury can leave you facing repeated surgeries, chronic pain, lost income, and a frustrating fight with large manufacturers determined to minimize your harm. You shouldn’t have to untangle which company is responsible — or take them on — alone while you’re trying to heal.

At Walch Law, we help injured people and families across California pursue claims against those responsible for their harm. We work to identify the specific device involved, connect your injury to documented product problems, document the full scope of your losses, partner with medical experts where appropriate, and move quickly to preserve evidence before it disappears.

We work on a contingency fee basis. You pay nothing out of pocket, and we only collect a fee if we recover compensation for you. There’s no financial risk in finding out where you stand.

Get Your Free Consultation Today

If hernia mesh has harmed you or someone you love, knowing which company made your device is the first step toward holding them accountable. Here’s what to remember:

Four major manufacturers — Bard, Ethicon, Covidien, and Atrium — have faced significant litigation.
The allegations center on design defects, manufacturing defects, and failure to warn.
Outcomes have varied — from Bard’s billion-dollar settlement to Covidien’s ongoing trials.
California strict liability offers a path to recovery, but deadlines make acting quickly essential.

Contact Walch Law today for a completely free, confidential consultation. Tell us what happened, and we’ll give you an honest assessment of your situation and the next steps that make sense for you.

Call today or reach out online to get started.