U.S. District Judge Richard Young ordered that three IVC filter cases pending against Cook Medical go to trial in 2017. The cases will be tried in MDL No. 2570 IN RE: Cook Medical, Inc., in the Southern District of Indiana.
Judge Young on July 19 identified three trial plaintiffs and types of filter:
- Brand v. Cook Medical, Inc. et al., Case No. 1:14-cv-6018 (Celect)
- Gage v. Cook Medical, Inc. et al., 1:14-cv-1875 (Günther Tulip)
- Hill v. Cook Medical, Inc., et al, 1:14-cv-6016 (Celect)
Hundreds of Cook and Cordis IVC Filter cases are already filed, and hundreds of thousands of potential clients nationwide who need attorneys.
Rapacious greed of two companies
The cause of the litigation is the rapacious greed of the two companies competing to get market share, rolling out one defective product after another for the last 16 years, brushing aside reports of patient deaths and lying to the FDA about it.
- Cordis IVC Filter Litigation is centered in the California state courts, where hundreds of cases are up for consolidation. Cordis Corporation is organized under the laws of Florida, with its principal place of business in Fremont, California.
- Bard IVC Filter Litigation is consolidated in MDL 2641 (multi-district litigation docket) in US District Court in Arizona.
- Cook Medical IVC Filter Litigation is consolidated in MDL 2570 in US District Court for the Southern District of Indiana. The defendants are Cook Medical, LLC and Cook Inc., both of Bloomington, IN, and William Cook Europe APS, Bjaeverskov, Denmark. The federal district court has created a short form complaint.
- There is no MDL for Boston Scientific Corp IVC Filter Litigation. “We believe it is possible that more cases will be filed and a motion for consolidation and transfer may be formed in an effort to form an MDL,” says Mass Tort Consultant John Ray.
The small, umbrella-like devices are implanted for prevention of pulmonary embolism and they perforate the vena cava, migrated out of position or fracture, sending fragments or metal shards into the heart or lungs.
On May 12, Magistrate Baker denied Cook’s motion for a protective order. “Cook tries to distinguish Bard [Bard IVC Filters Products Liability Litigation, MDL 15-02641-PHX DGC (D. Ariz. April 1, 2016] on the basis that the defendant in that case had received an FDA warning letter, whereas Cook has not. This strikes the Court as the proverbial distinction without a difference. Warning letter or not, case law supports a finding that this information is relevant and discoverable,” he wrote.