Updates and Preparations in the C.R. Bard MDL Hernia Mesh Case: Third Bellwether Trial Approaches Amidst Growing Lawsuit Numbers

September 1, 2023

The C.R. Bard Hernia Mesh MDL continues to evolve, with several key updates in the bellwether trials within this MDL. Bellwether trials play a critical role in shaping the course of thousands of pending lawsuits. 


Bellwether trials are test cases used in multidistrict litigation (MDL) to assist in predicting the outcomes of similar future cases. They are typically representative cases chosen from a larger group of lawsuits. The results of these trials can provide insight into how juries might respond to evidence and testimonies, and often guide settlement negotiations in subsequent cases. The third bellwether trial, Stinson v. C.R. Bard, et al. (2:18-cv-01022), is scheduled to begin on October 16, 2023.


The previous bellwether trials have provided valuable insights. For instance, the first, the Johns case, resulted in a verdict favoring the defense. This result suggested that plaintiffs may need to seek additional medical treatment to strengthen their case, a lesson that could potentially influence strategies in future trials.


The third upcoming bellwether trial has seen some recent developments. The plaintiff's lawyers withdrew their manufacturing defect claim, focusing the case on the failure to warn. This decision could streamline the trial and potentially impact the legal strategies of future plaintiffs.


As the third bellwether trial approaches, the number of hernia mesh lawsuits continues to grow. The Bard MDL added nearly 200 new lawsuits last month, bringing the total number of lawsuits in the Bard MDL class action to over 20,000.


In anticipation of this pivotal trial, the MDL Judge issued an order setting deadlines for last-minute discovery related to the plaintiff’s post-operative treatment. This suggests the judge is committed to proceeding with the trial in October without further delays.


The outcomes of these bellwether trials will likely influence the strategies and decisions of both sides in the remaining thousands of hernia mesh lawsuits. They could potentially lead to large-scale settlements if the plaintiffs' claims are validated, or alternatively, they could strengthen the defense's position if the verdicts favor C.R. Bard. If you or someone you know has experienced adverse effects from a faulty Hernia Mesh Product, please reach out to our office for a complimentary legal consultation at 1-888-383-4107.


While this article provides general legal information, it does not constitute legal advice. The best way to get guidance on your specific legal issue is to contact a lawyer.


Contact Us

By submitting this form you agree to receive text messages.

By Rebecca Rivera December 9, 2025
As reported in the Washington Post December 5th, 2025 by Amudalat Ajasa A prominent scientific journal, Regulatory Toxicology and Pharmacology, has retracted a widely cited 2000 study that previously concluded the active ingredient in Roundup, glyphosate, posed no cancer risk to humans. The retraction was initiated after evidence emerged suggesting the study was heavily influenced by the herbicide's seller, Monsanto (now owned by Bayer), in an apparent effort to disguise potential health risks. Specific concerns cited by the journal include the strong possibility that Monsanto employees contributed to the writing without proper acknowledgment, that the authors may have received undisclosed payments from the company , and that the findings were based solely on unpublished Monsanto studies. This misconduct, discovered through internal company emails during federal litigation, is significant because the faulty research served as a bedrock for regulatory decisions regarding glyphosate for decades. Summary of Alleged Faulty Study and Monsanto's Influence The Study and Its Conclusion: The retracted paper, published in 2000, was a "bedrock study" that concluded: "under present and expected conditions of new use, there is no potential for Roundup herbicide to pose a health risk to humans." The Retraction: The scientific journal retracted the study due to a loss of confidence in its results and conclusions, citing the need to "maintain the integrity of the journal." Evidence of Undisclosed Influence: The co-editor in chief cited evidence suggesting that Monsanto employees "may have contributed to the writing of the article without proper acknowledgment as co authors." Undisclosed Payments: The retraction also noted that the study's authors may have been paid by Monsanto without disclosing it . Basis of Findings: The journal stated that the study's findings about cancer risk were "solely based on unpublished studies from Monsanto." Discovery of Influence: Monsanto's influence over the study was reportedly discovered through internal emails released during federal litigation against the company in 2017. Impact: The study "had a significant impact on regulatory decision-making regarding glyphosate and Roundup for decades," and was one of the most-cited papers on glyphosate safety, underpinning federal regulations for the pesticide. The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) even cited it in its 2016 review of glyphosate. Context and Aftermath Bayer's Defense: Bayer (which acquired Monsanto in 2018) defended the chemical's safety and argued that Monsanto's involvement was appropriately cited in the acknowledgments, stating that glyphosate is the most extensively studied herbicide and that the "vast majority of published studies on glyphosate had no Monsanto involvement." Regulatory Stance: The EPA stated the retraction would not affect its current stance —which is that glyphosate is "not likely to be carcinogenic to humans"—because the agency does not directly rely on review articles like this one, but uses them to find other relevant individual studies. Litigation: Bayer has spent approximately $10 billion to settle lawsuits arguing the company did not warn customers about the negative health impacts of using Roundup. Read the full article in the Washington Post
By Rebecca Rivera November 14, 2025
In this series premiere episode, Founder & President of SOSCSA, Child Sexual Abuse Survivor & BSA Bankruptcy Claimant, Curtis Garrison interviews attorney Jason J Joy for an update on the BSA bankruptcy and discussing childhood abuse litigation for which Jason is an outspoken and experienced advocate. Jason's firm is actively litigating cases for many clients his law firm represents. This podcast is recommended for clients already represented, and for those who are still contemplating coming forward to establish a claim. Topics covered in this episode: Recent BSA Bankruptcy Trust report Lajun Claimants (Guam) v. Boy Scouts of America and their recent Petition For A Writ Of Certiorari to the U.S. Supreme Court The 1.5% initial payment, possible second payment time / total percentage Future Claims, BSA Councils, BSA Charters (churches, schools, etc) which there are over 100,000 entities possibly getting free of liability Mixed Claims explained We did not vote for this plan, they promised we would be paid in “Paid in Full” Plans to file an Amicus Brief Statute of Limitations 
By Rebecca Rivera November 6, 2025
The Boy Scouts of America bankruptcy case, involving tens of thousands of survivors of childhood sexual abuse, is among the largest and most contentious mass tort proceedings in U.S. history. In this podcast, Attorney Jason Joy breaks down the latest ruling from the Third Circuit Court, which leaves many survivors of childhood sexual abuse with drastically underfunded compensation.