Date: 06-06-2023

Case Style:

Aaron Stinson v. Davol, Inc., et al.

Case Number: 2:18-CV-01022

Judge: Edmund A. Sargus

Court: United States District Court for the Southern District of Ohio (Franklin County)

Plaintiff's Attorney:

Defendant's Attorney: Arryn K. Kole, Eric Lawrence Alexander, Matthew Daniel Jacobson, Michael Kevin Brown, C. Wade Bowden, et al.

Description: Columbus, Ohio personal injury lawyer represented Plaintiff who sued Defendants on product liability theories.


Plaintiff Aaron Stinson and Defendants C.R. Bard, Inc. and Davol, Inc. filed various MILs to exclude evidence in this case. Now before the Court are (A) Plaintiff's MIL No. 2 to Exclude Evidence or Argument Concerning the Reason for Warnings on Any Material Safety Data Sheets (“MSDS”) and Technical Data Sheets (“TDS”) (ECF No. 160); (B) Plaintiff's MIL No. 4 to Exclude Evidence or Argument Concerning Defendants' Employees, Witnesses, Expert Witnesses, and/or Their Family Members or Friends' Personal Experience with Hernia Mesh (ECF No. 159); (C) Plaintiff's MIL No. 8 to Exclude Certain Evidence Related to UCSF and Abbott Warning Letters (ECF No. 178); (D) Plaintiff's MIL No. 9 to Exclude All Evidence or Argument that the PerFix Plug is Still on the Market (ECF No. 163); (E) Plaintiff's MIL No. 7 to Exclude All Evidence Related to the Adverse Event or Complaint Rates of the PerFix Plug from Defendants' Counsel and Expert Witnesses (ECF No. 165); and (F) Plaintiff's MIL No. 15 to Exclude Evidence, Argument, or Suggestion Related to the PerFix Plug's Safety History and Its Lack of Complaints (ECF No. 179).

Plaintiff's case will be tried as the third bellwether selected from thousands of cases in this multidistrict litigation (“MDL”) titled In Re: Davol, Inc./C.R. Bard, Inc., Polypropylene Hernia Mesh Products Liability Litigation, 2:18-md-2846. The Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation described the cases in this MDL as “shar[ing] common factual questions arising out of allegations that defects in defendants' polypropylene hernia mesh products can lead to complications when implanted in patients, including adhesions, damage to organs, inflammatory and allergic responses, foreign body rejection, migration of the mesh, and infections.” (Case No. 2:18-md-02846, ECF No. 1 at PagelD #1-2.)

Plaintiff brings this action to recover for injuries sustained as a result of the implantation of an Extra-Large PerFix Plug hernia mesh device, alleging that Defendants knew of the risks presented by the device but marketed and sold it despite these risks and without appropriate warnings. After summary judgment, the following claims remain for trial: design defect, failure to warn, negligence, breach of express warranty, and breach of implied warranty; the Court has reserved judgment on Plaintiff's claims for manufacturing defect, certain damages, and claims related to his current Bard Mesh implant.

The relevant facts here are that in 2015 Plaintiff underwent a right inguinal hernia repair with an Extra-Large PerFix Plug mesh, a product manufactured by Defendants. In 2017, Plaintiff underwent exploratory surgery to determine if he had a recurrent hernia or nerve entrapment because of chronic pain in his right groin area. The explanting surgeon, Dr. Radke, noted extensive scarring and found “a large ball approximately 2.5 cm in diameter of rolled up mesh next to the pubic tubercle.” (ECF No. 89-22 at PageID #1134.) Dr. Radke removed the mesh, which he described as “slow going and extremely difficult” because of the significant scarring. (Id.) Dr. Radke then repaired the hernia with another of Defendants' products, Bard Marlex Mesh. (Id.) Even after the explant surgery, Plaintiff claims to have continuing chronic pain and other complications.

Outcome: Plaintiffs' motions granted in part and denied in part.

Plaintiff's Experts:

Defendant's Experts:

Comments: