Bard IVC Filter Lawsuit Moving Forward with May 2018 Trial
The U.S. District Judge presiding over all the IVC filter lawsuits has rejected a motion made by C.R. Bard to have the bellwether case dismissed prior to trial. That Bard IVC filter lawsuit alleges that a plaintiff suffered catastrophic injuries as a result of a medical device that was intended to help them. The claims will be going before a jury in that IVC filter lawsuit in May 2018, allowing the plaintiffs to seek punitive damages at that time.
Many patients who received a Bard IVC filter experienced pain and problems after implantation. While side effects with all medical devices are possible, manufacturers have a responsibility to warn patients and doctors about the risks in advance. If the patient can show that the manufacturer knew about or should have known about the dangers and failed to inform the medical community, lawsuits may be filed.
Currently, problems with Bard IVC filters have come to light in lawsuits filed on behalf of patients and their family members who suffered severe injuries. There are more than 3,500 cases currently pending in the MDL for the product liability claims associated with these allegedly defective medical devices.
The purpose of the Bard IVC filters is to prevent blood clots from traveling to a patient’s lungs, ultimately generating a pulmonary embolism. However, each Bard IVC filter lawsuit included in the MDL alleges that there are similar design defects that cause the devices to move out of position, to fracture, to puncture internal organs or to send small pieces traveling throughout the body.
The Bard IVC filter lawsuit MDL was centralized in 2015 to reduce duplicative discovery efforts into common issues. A small group of early or bellwether cases have been prepared with one Bard IVC filter lawsuit regarding the Eclipse model to go before a jury in May 2018.
The initial request for Bard’s summary judgment was denied on March 12 by the judge. The court did dismiss plaintiff claims for unfair trade practices, consumer fraud, misrepresentation and negligence per se.
The lawsuit will go forward to trial based on claims of punitive damages and failure to warn. Allegedly, C.R. Bard says that their warning notices were adequate and it is the responsibility of the plaintiffs in the Bard IVC filter lawsuit to show that the warnings were insufficient.
The outcomes of the initial Bard IVC filter lawsuit bellwether case will not be binding for other cases. It will be an indicator of what may happen in future litigation and also help to explain how juries may respond to the critical issues and testimony likely to be repeated throughout many other cases.
Furthermore, the use of an MDL may help to facilitate settlement negotiation for the Bard IVC filter lawsuit cases, which could eliminate the need for hundreds of additional trial dates located in courts across the country.
Bard is not the only company currently facing litigation for these problems. The Cordis IVC filter and Cook IVC filter have also been named as problematic by patients.
If you’ve suffered complications because of an IVC filter, contact the lawyers at McDonald Worley today for help with your case.
Disclaimer: McDonald Worley is not representing the plaintiff in this lawsuit.