Case Background
Larry Patterson and his wife, Tammy Patterson, sued Covidien and related companies over a Symbotex hernia mesh implant. The Etowah County, Alabama, couple filed suit on January 28, 2022, in the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts. The case later became part of the Covidien hernia mesh multidistrict litigation before Judge Patti B. Saris.
The original Complaint named several Covidien, Medtronic, Tyco, and Sofradim entities. On March 29, 2023, the Plaintiffs filed a Short Form Complaint. That pleading named only Covidien LP and Sofradim Production SAS as Defendants. The verdict form referred to the Defendants as Covidien.
Cause
According to the Complaint, Symbotex was a knitted polyester mesh with an absorbable collagen film. The mesh was intended for placement next to the bowel and other organs.
The Plaintiffs alleged that the collagen coating offered only temporary protection against adhesions. They claimed the coating broke down quickly, exposing bare polyester that caused adhesions and chronic inflammation.
The Plaintiffs also alleged that Covidien failed to warn surgeons about these risks. They claimed the product instructions did not disclose how soon bare polyester could become exposed. They further alleged that safer alternatives existed, including other polymer and biologic mesh designs.
Injury
According to the Complaint, Dr. Lucian Newman III repaired Patterson’s incisional hernia on July 27, 2017. Dr. Newman implanted a Covidien Symbotex mesh, Model No. SYM9.
On July 2, 2020, Patterson underwent another surgery for a small bowel obstruction and a recurrent hernia. Dr. Newman removed the section of small bowel that was stuck tightly to the mesh. He did not implant new mesh to repair the recurrent hernia.
The Plaintiffs alleged that the collagen coating resorbed too early and caused significant adhesions to the mesh. They claimed Patterson suffered extensive pain, bowel injury, and a bowel resection. They also alleged permanent injuries, mental anguish, emotional distress, and medical bills.
Damages
The Plaintiffs sought compensatory damages for Patterson’s pain, suffering, permanent impairment, medical costs, and lost earnings. Tammy Patterson sought damages for loss of consortium. The Plaintiffs further requested punitive damages, attorneys’ fees, costs, and interest.
Key Arguments and Proceedings
Legal Representation
Plaintiff(s): Larry Patterson | Tammy Patterson
Counsel for Plaintiff(s): Kelsey Stokes | Timothy M. O’Brien | Walter Kelley | Andrea R. Preston | Grover Cleveland Robinson | C. Brett Vaughn | David Lee Hobbs | James Caleb Cunningham | Andrea Giovannone | Edwina Bullard Clarke
Defendant(s): Covidien LP | Sofradim Production SAS
Counsel for Defendant(s): Mary Novacheck | Buffy J. Mims | Kelsey Tavares | Jessica C. Wilson | Christopher G. Campbell | David Koehler | Lindsey C. Boney IV | Lyn Peeples Pruitt | Ilana Hope Eisenstein | Stanley E. Blackmon
Key Arguments or Remarks by Counsel
Claims
The Short Form Complaint adopted 15 counts from the Master Complaint. These included strict liability for design defect, failure to warn, and manufacturing defect. The Plaintiffs also asserted negligence, negligence per se, gross negligence, and breach of implied and express warranties. Other counts alleged negligent and intentional infliction of emotional distress, negligent misrepresentation, fraud, and fraudulent concealment. The Plaintiffs also claimed loss of consortium and punitive damages.
According to the Defendants’ post-trial motions, the Plaintiffs withdrew their design defect claims at the end of trial. The jury then decided claims for negligent failure to warn, false statements, concealment, loss of consortium, and punitive damages.
Defense
Covidien LP and Sofradim Production SAS adopted the Master Answer dated March 13, 2023, including all affirmative defenses. They denied all causes of action unless expressly admitted. They also demanded a jury trial on all counts.
In post-trial filings, the Defendants argued that the Symbotex instructions warned of adhesions, recurrence, bowel obstruction, and chronic pain. They also pointed to Patterson’s diabetes and obesity as factors in his complications.
Pre-Trial Motion
Covidien moved for summary judgment on the Plaintiffs’ claims.
The Court denied the motion on most of the claims. These included failure to warn, negligent failure to warn, negligence per se, gross negligence, and breach of implied warranty. The denial also covered the emotional distress, misrepresentation, fraud, concealment, loss of consortium, and punitive damages claims.
The Court reserved ruling on the design defect claims.
Jury Verdict
The jury returned a unanimous verdict on August 4, 2026.
The jury found that Covidien negligently warned or failed to warn about a danger related to the Symbotex mesh. It also found that this failure caused Larry Patterson harm.
The jury rejected the claim that Covidien intentionally or recklessly made a false statement about the mesh. However, it found that Covidien made a false statement by mistake and innocently. The jury found that this statement caused Patterson harm.
The jury also found that Covidien concealed an important fact about the Symbotex mesh. It found that the concealment caused Patterson harm.
The jury awarded Larry Patterson $77 million. It also found that Tammy Patterson proved a loss of consortium and awarded her $11 million. However, the jury found that Patterson did not prove punitive damages by clear and convincing evidence.
On August 7, 2026, the Court entered Judgment for $77 million to Larry Patterson and $11 million to Tammy Patterson.
Post-trial Motions
On September 4, 2026, Covidien LP and Sofradim Production SAS filed three post-trial motions.
First, the Defendants renewed their motion for judgment as a matter of law. They argued that Dr. Newman never read the Symbotex Instructions for Use. They added that no witness testified that anyone from Covidien told him how long the collagen barrier lasted. According to the motion, Dr. Newman testified that he had no memory of selecting Symbotex for Patterson’s surgery. The Defendants also noted that the Plaintiffs’ expert, Dr. Stephen Ferzoco, placed the start of adhesions within about seven days. They argued that the Plaintiffs’ proposed warning therefore would not have prevented the injury. They further argued that the fraud claims failed without proof that Dr. Newman relied on any statement.
Second, the Defendants moved for a new trial. They argued that the jury heard irrelevant marketing evidence and testimony from sales representatives Dr. Newman never met. They also argued that the Plaintiffs presented days of design evidence before dropping their design defect claims. According to the Defendants, the Court declined to give additional jury instructions on that evidence. The Defendants also challenged Dr. Newman’s testimony that he was “one hundred percent certain” the obstruction involved the mesh. They called this an undisclosed expert opinion that contradicted his operative note. They also objected that the jury received no instruction on product defect.
Third, the Defendants moved for remittitur, asking the Court to reduce the damages. They called the award the largest noneconomic verdict in a federal hernia mesh case they could identify. They noted that Patterson returned to full-time work about three months after his 2020 surgery. They also noted that the Plaintiffs stipulated at trial that they were not seeking lost wages or medical expenses. The Defendants pointed to federal hernia mesh bellwether verdicts of $500,000 and $250,000. They asked the Court to cut Larry Patterson’s award below $3 million and Tammy Patterson’s to $100,000 or less.
Court Documents:
Documents are available for purchase upon request at [email protected]
