Bard IVC Filter Lawsuit Stands with $3.6M Jury Award

A Bard IVC filter lawsuit has concluded with Bard being blocked from getting a new trial after a $3.6 million jury verdict came down.

This verdict awarded in the Bard IVC filter lawsuit was handed down after a multidistrict litigation test trial regarding the safety of vein filters that are designed to capture blood clots before they travel to the heart.

The Arizona federal court managing the Bard lawsuit has blocked Bard’s request for a new judgement or trial as a matter of law.

In April, Bard argued following the Bard IVC filter lawsuit verdict that the evidence associated with the award was not appropriate and said that the verdict was inconsistent, once the jury sided with the plaintiff regarding a negligent failure to warn claim linked to their IVC filter product.

However, the jury did not decide with the plaintiff on practically identical strict liability failure to warn claim, and this was the grounds for the manufacturer challenging the outcome of the Bard IVC filter lawsuit.

The judge in that IVC filter lawsuit, however, who was responsible for reviewing Bard’s request to reconsider, said that the two claims are different from one another and that the jury was well within their rights and opportunities to determine liability for one and not the other.

The plaintiff in the lawsuit was 37-years-old at the time she received a Bard G2 filter. In 2009 however, that Bard filter broke apart and pieces became lodged in the patient’s spine and heart.

That patient who ultimately decided to file a Bard IVC filter lawsuit had to go through open heart surgery to take out the pieces and despite this fact, has several shards remaining in her body, which she says cause her multiple complications.

This plaintiff was the first in the Bard IVC filter lawsuit multidistrict litigation, known as a bellwether trial. There are approximately 3,700 other cases with similar allegations.

ivc-filter-wrongful-death-lawsuitThe objective of bellwether trials is to give attorneys on either side an idea of the weaknesses or strengths based on the claims made in individual suits.

The purpose of this is to help both sides recognize opportunities to move towards settlement where those exist.

Any patient who has an IVC filter and develops serious side effects and problems with it should consult with their doctor about options for removal.

Many patients who originally received a filter could benefit from having it taken out sooner rather than later in order to minimize the risk of painful complications or side effects.

Patients who already coped with these injuries and issues might even file a lawsuit.

The Bard IVC Filter Lawsuit is Case No. 2:16-cv-00474, in the U.S. District Court for the District of Arizona.

If you or someone you know has grounds to file an IVC filter lawsuit, consult with the talented attorneys at McDonald Worley today. The attorneys at McDonald Worley have a strong track record of investigating claims of defective medical devices.

Disclaimer: McDonald Worley is not representing the plaintiff in this lawsuit.


Unless we win!

Primary Contact Form
Scroll to Top