3,700 IVC Filter Lawsuits Filed Against Bard and Cook Medical

Bard G2 Express IVC Filter
Bard G2 Express IVC Filter

Cook Medical, Inc. and C.R. Bard, Inc. continue to face mounting lawsuits over their retrievable IVC filters, with 3,769 cases filed against the companies in two federal MDLs.

Cook Medical is a defendant in at least 1,918 product liability claims involving its Gunther Tulip and Celect IVC filter blood clot filters. IN RE: Cook Medical, Inc., IVC Filters Marketing, Sales Practices and Products Liability Litigation is pending before US District Chief Judge Richard L. Young in MDL 2570 in the Southern District of Indiana.

In March 2017, Judge Young ordered both sides to appear at three hearings with a proposed settlement framework.

Bard’s IVC filters, including its Recovery, G2, Meridian, and Denali product lines, are the target of 1,851 injury claims. IN RE: Bard IVC Filters Products Liability Litigation is pending before US District Judge David G. Campbell in MDL 2641 in the District of Arizona.

On March 21, 2017, Judge Campbell appointed the Plaintiffs’ Co-Lead/Liaison Counsel and State/Federal Liaison Counsel:

  • Ramon R. Lopez, Lopez McHugh, LLP, Newport Beach, CA.
  • Mark S. O’Connor, Gallagher & Kennedy, PA, Phoenix, AZ.

Failure to Warn

IVC filters are implanted into the inferior vena cava – the body’s largest blood vessel – to intercept blood clots before they can travel to the heart and lungs. The devices are indicated for patients at risk for pulmonary embolism, and who are unable to use standard blood-thinning medications. The filters involved in the C.R. Bard and Cook Medical litigations are retrievable, and are intended to be removed once a patient is no longer at risk for pulmonary embolism.

Plaintiffs pursuing IVC filter lawsuits against C.R. Bard and Cook Medical claim that the companies failed to provide doctors with adequate warnings and instructions for removal. They also claim that the devices are defectively designed, and accuse the two companies of concealing the risks associated with their blood clot filters.

The FDA has issued two safety alerts about using retrievable IVC filters.

  • The first was released in August 2010, after the devices were linked to hundreds of adverse events, including reports of filters fracturing and migrating to other areas of the body. In other cases, pieces of the filters perforated organs and blood vessels.
  • The FDA issued a second alert in May 2014 to remind doctors of the importance of IVC filter retrieval. A year earlier, a paper published in JAMA Internal Medicine found only 8.5% of retrievable IVC filters were successfully removed.

“In conclusion, our research suggests that the frequent use of IVC filters for VTE treatment and prophylaxis, combined with a low retrieval rate and inconsistent use of anticoagulant therapy, results in suboptimal outcomes, such as mechanical filter failure and high rates of VTE,” the authors of the report concluded. “More comprehensive longitudinal data would likely identify additional complications.”

Read More

Australian Survey Finds that 58% were Injured by Pelvic Mesh Implant

HIC CEO, Danny Vadasz
HIC CEO, Danny Vadasz says “This is a significant public health problem which has been grossly underestimated — in terms of numbers of women as well as the severity of resultant health problems.”

Problems caused by transvaginal mesh have been grossly under-estimated, according to a new survey by an Australian Health Issue Center.

  • Of these, a shocking 58% say they have been adversely impacted, citing problems such as chronic incontinence, abdominal pain, and pain during intercourse. Sadly, for a quarter of these women, the impact of the implants has led to a breakdown of their marriages or personal relationships.
  • Just 38% of the respondents believe they made an informed choice to have the procedure.
  • Of the women who sought remedial medical help, slightly over 10% reported this made things better while 40% reported it made no difference and 11%, that it made matters worse.
  • The remaining 39% were told that nothing could be done for them.

In just three weeks, 1,250 women completed the online Facebook survey targeting the thousands of women nationwide who have undergone pelvic mesh implants to treat stress urinary incontinence and pelvic organ prolapse.

In the US, there are 80,000 lawsuits against the manufacturers or transvaginal mesh in eight MDLS:

A catastrophic failure

Commenting on the overwhelming response to the survey, HIC CEO, Danny Vadasz, says he has no idea ‘how much of the iceberg has been revealed’ so far but believes there could be considerably more given that HIC is currently averaging over 100 survey responses per day.

“Even if we were to receive no further responses, I think we have already demonstrated that this is a significant public health problem which has been grossly under-estimated — in terms of numbers of women as well as the severity of resultant health problems.

HIC is a not for profit consumer health advocate based in Victoria, Australia, which encourages better health outcomes by encouraging consumers to become involved in their own health care and ensuring the health system is responsive to their needs.

“What we are seeing is a catastrophic failure at all levels of the health system to protect the well-being of thousands of women – the lack of due diligence by the TGA in approving the device given the risks; culpability of manufacturers who despite plenty of evidence of adverse reactions overseas, continue marketing their products; the government which does not have a central register of how many procedures have occurred and how many products have been sold and finally, those surgeons who continue to practise the procedure without informing their patients of the risks and the irreversibility of the implant.

“Clearly a lot of questions need to be asked!”

Vadasz says while transvaginal mesh has been seen by the medical fraternity as having ‘revolutionised’ surgical options for women with stress urinary incontinence and pelvic organ prolapse, the collateral damage for women when it goes wrong, is just too high. “We are calling for the classification of mesh to treat either of the conditions to be upgraded to a higher risk status so the patient consent process reflects the consequences when there are complications.”

Unaware that mesh caused injuries

Despite the number of women coming forward, Vadasz believes that the problem will continue to go underreported given that many women do not associate their symptoms with their mesh implants. On top of this, many have been told by doctors there is no causal relationship.

“This has been borne out by the significant number of survey respondents who told us they were unaware that the pain and problems they had suffered for many years could be linked to their mesh implant. Some have cried at the realization with one woman declaring, ‘Now I know I’m not crazy’.”

Here are some of the more harrowing comments on the HIC Facebook page:

“My specialist told me it was all in my head. He got angry with me and said: “I suggest you stop focussing on the vagina, and get on with your life” in a dismissive and irritated tone. Doctors I have seen since have not been forthcoming on what they can see, it is like they are trying to protect the medical fraternity by not telling me fully what is going on or helping me fine treatment.”

“I was told the mesh cannot be removed. I had complications from the moment I came out of theater. I needed a complete reconstruction but was refused and offered the TVT as part of a study or to put up with consequences of a grossly oversized baby that was a face presentation and a complete episiotomy after he became stuck. I now suffer urge incontinence and a partial vaginal prolapse. I wish I’d never had the TVT done!”

 Vadasz is calling on women who have had an implant (or believe they may have) to complete the HIC survey: https://www.facebook.com/pg/UnderstandingPelvicMesh/about/

About the survey

The Health Issues Centre is one of several organizations invited to give input into the senate inquiry into the extent and impact of Transvaginal Mesh Implants (TVM) across Australia. Currently there is little information about the number of women who have undertaken the procedure and less about those who have suffered from side-effects. In order to understand the size of the problem and gain insight into the impact on these women, the consumer health advocacy conducted a highly targeted nationwide survey.

Using the center’s Facebook page to create interest and an online survey, the survey targeted 14,000 women nationally. The questions are as follows:

·       Have you undergone a transvaginal mesh, tape or sling implant as treatment for urinary incontinence or pelvic organ prolapse?

·       Do you continue to have undiagnosed symptoms of chronic abdominal pain or urinary incontinence?

·       Do you feel you were fully informed before agreeing to the procedure?

·       Did the procedure satisfactorily resolve your health concerns?

·       Could you specify any adverse impacts you may have experienced?

·       How would you rate this adverse impact – discomforting, severe, debilitating, unendurable, none of these.

·       Have you sought medical assistance to rectify the problem?

·       Did your doctor/specialist confirm a causal relationship between your symptoms and the mesh implant?

·       If you were offered remedial treatment, did it change your condition?

While launched only three weeks ago, 20,000 have engaged with the survey and 1,250 surveys have been completed. Over 14,000 people have viewed the Facebook video.

 

 

Read More

Bard Seeks Summary Judgment in IVC Filter MDL with Novel Preemption Argument

Bard IVC filter
IVC filters cause injuries from migration downward and upward. The IVC Filters can also tilt or shift, making them almost impossible to remove.

In a gambit to dismiss 1,700 lawsuits against its IVC filter, CR Bard is pressing a novel argument that the FDA’s quickie 510(k) approval process has become more rigorous, thus entitling it to a ruling that the plaintiffs’ state-law claims are preempted by federal law.

The argument is a stretch because courts have often declined to hold claims preempted where medical devices were cleared under the shortcut 510(k) process, as opposed to the more rigorous premarket approval (PMA) process.

All of Bard’s IVC filters involved in MDL 2641 – the Recovery, G2, G2, Express, G2 X, EclipseTM, Meridian, and Denali Filters — got approval via the lenient 510(k) process. The case is IN RE: Bard IVC Filters Products Liability Litigation, Case No. 2:15-MD-02641-DGC before US District Judge David G. Campbell in Arizona.

Changed greatly?

Bard argues in its summary judgment motion that the plaintiff’s master long and short form complaints, asserting state-law claims, are expressly and impliedly preempted by federal law.

FDA approval through Sec. 510(k) of the Medical Device Amendments of 1976 merely requires that a new device is “substantially equivalent” to a predicate device — but not a review of its safety or efficacy as would happen in a premarket approval application (PMA).

“The 510(k) program has changed greatly since Lohr (Medtronic v. Lohr, 518 U.S. 470 (1996),” Bard argues. “In 1990, Congress dramatically altered the 510(k) process in section 12 of the SMDA (Safe Medical Devices Act). The language expressly linked FDA substantial findings to “safety” and “efficacy”/”effectiveness”:

[T]he term “substantially equivalent” or “substantial equivalence” means . . . that the device . . . (ii)(1) has different technological characteristics and the information submitted . . . contains information, including clinical data if deemed necessary by the Secretary, that demonstrates that the device is as safe and effective as a legally marketed device, and (II) does not raise different questions of safety and efficacy than the predicate device.

Bard says that in its 510(k) approvals:

  • The FDA required compliance with special controls.
  • FDA required Bard to conduct clinical studies of its filters.
  • FDA required additional testing, labeling, and other information during its review.

“These device-specific guidances are intended to address specific risks or issues related to specific devices or device types, and where, as here, FDA has required manufacturers to follow them, they become device-specific federal requirements entitled to preemptive effect,” Bard asserts.

Bard quotes an FDA  2010 Working Report, saying that “the 510(k) program has changed significantly since its inception…. Through various statutory and regulatory modifications over time, it has become a multifaceted premarket review process that is expected to assure that cleared devices, subject to general and applicable special controls, provide reasonable assurance of safety and effectiveness, and to facilitate innovation in the medical device industry.”

Similar argument failed

A similar argument failed in a motion for summary judgment by Janssen in IN RE: Xarelto (Rivaroxaban) Products Liability Litigation. In that case, US District Judge Eldon Fallon ruled:

“The Court in Levine [Wyeth v. Levine, 555 U.S. 555 (2009)] held that a state failure to warn claim against a brand-name drug manufacturer was not preempted by federal law, finding that Congress had clearly intended the judicial branch to work in concert with the FDA to protect against unnecessary risk,” the court held.

The judge added, “The court in Guidry [Guidry v. Janssen Pharms., Inc., No. 15-4591, 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 115447, at *48 (E.D. La. Aug. 29, 2016)], relying on Wyeth, found that Plaintiff’s pre-market defective design claims under the LPLA [Louisiana Products Liability Act] were not preempted. “Federal law does not prevent a drug manufacturer from complying with this state-imposed duty before seeking FDA approval. Far from impossible, the two are complimentary, preferable, and perhaps necessary to protect the public health and assure the safety, effectiveness, and reliability of drugs.”

Plaintiffs argue that IVC filters cause injuries as follows:

  • Migration downward and upward. The IVC Filters can tilt or shift, making them almost impossible to remove.
  • Device fracture, causing blood clots (embolism) in the heart, lung, liver and kidneys. Research shows that the devices experienced fracture rates of 37% to 40% after five and a half years.
  • Perforation, where stress on the IVC Filter struts leads to fractures that puncture adjacent organs and vessels.

Read More

Federal Court to Select Pool of Bellwether Cases in Bair Hugger MDL

bair-hugger-infectionUS District Judge Joan N. Ericksen said she will randomly select 150 cases for bellwether trials from the 809 actions filed in In Re: Bair Hugger Forced Air Warming Products Liability Litigation – MDL No. 2666 in Minnesota.

Pretrial Order No. 15, issued on November 16, states that the cases will be designated on Dec. 23 from those that were filed in, removed to, or transferred to MDL No. 15-2666 (JNE/FLN) on or before Dec. 19, 2016.

After the parties submit relevant characteristics or categories to be considered, they will each select 16 cases from the pool of 150 for consideration for bellwether trials. Cases can be drawn from those filed in Ramsey County, Minnesota state court.

Deep joint infections

Bellwether nominations must be made by Jan. 20, 2017. Between then are March 1, 2017 the parties may conduct case-specific discovery, including collecting records from third parties. By March 1 the court will select up to eight of the Bair Hugger lawsuits for the final trial pool, with the first trial commencing on Nov. 6.

The 3M Bair Hugger is used during surgical procedures to regulate a patient’s body temperature. During an operation, a portable heater/blower takes in and warms ambient air, which is then gently forced through a flexible plastic hose into a single-use, disposable blanket.

Plaintiffs include patients who developed hip and knee infections following joint replacement surgery that involved use of the forced air warmer system. They assert that the Bair Hugger has a design defect that may cause the surgical site to come into contact with bacteria and other contaminants from the operating room floor. They further charge that the 3M Company has been aware of this risk for years, yet failed to make design changes or issue any warnings to the medical community.

The Bair Hugger system was developed by Arizant Healthcare, Inc., which was acquired by the 3M Company in 2006. Since its introduction in 1987, the apparatus has been adopted as the standard surgical warming system in thousands of hospitals throughout the U.S.

For more information see Court Approves Bair Hugger Plaintiff Fact Sheet and Medical Form.

Read More

More than 1,000 Product Liability Lawsuits Filed Against Bard Meridian IVC Filter

Virginia Bard Meridian IVC Filter LawsuitMore than 1,000 actions have been filed against C.R. Bard, Inc. about its defective Meridian IVC Filter in litigation consolidated in Arizona federal court before US District Judge David G. Campbell.  The C.R. Bard IVC Filter Litigation MDL 2641 was created on August 17, 2015.

The latest case is filed by Aleasia J. P., a woman from Virginia who was implanted with the C.R. Bard Meridian® Vena Cava Filter on October 12, 2012 at a hospital in Virginia. The action was filed on November 8, 2016 in the U.S. District Court for the District of Arizona, Case No. 2:16-cv-03871.

Knew device was defective

Bard no longer manufactures or sells the Meridian in the United States. Product liability and injury lawsuits filed against Bard, Cordis and other retrievable IVC filter makers allege that these companies knew or should have known that the devices were defective because:

  • The defendants failed to conduct proper testing, including human clinical testing, to determine how the devices actually functioned in the body.
  • Published medical studies have found many complications including fracture, device migration, perforation of the vena cava wall, organ penetration, and increased risk for venous thrombosis.
  • The defendants misrepresented the risks with retrievable ICVs and failed to issue appropriate safety warnings to patients and physicians.

Meridian is a temporary filter that consists of 12 needle-like legs arranged in a cone-shape around a central hook. It is implanted in a major blood vessel called the inferior vena cava (IVC) to catch blood clots and prevent pulmonary embolisms

Meridian was approved by the FDA in 2011 with a 510(k) application, which means it did not go through clinical trials because it was “equivalent” to several other IVC filters made by C.R. Bard. Unfortunately, these other filters have been linked to serious risks.

Meridian is similar to the Recovery, which was introduced in 2003 and withdrawn in the market in 2005. In 2012, a study of 363 patients estimated that 40% would fracture within 5.5 years. See Class Action Charges Company Lied to Cover Up Defective Bard IVC Filter

Meridian is also very similar to the G2, which C.R. Bard introduced in 2005 to replace the Recovery. In June 2014, a study of 829 patients implanted with the G2 estimated that 38% would fracture within 5 years, with the risk increasing over time.

Read More

New Research: IVC Filters Don’t Save Lives in Trauma Patients

Bard Denali IVC Filter
Bard Denali IVC Filter

New research in JAMA Surgery concludes that IVC filters don’t save lives in trauma patients, who are at increased risk of bleeding and thrombosis, and the devices should not be placed in trauma patients in an effort to decrease all-cause mortality.

“The research herein demonstrates no significant difference in survival in trauma patients with vs without placement of an IVC filter, whether in the presence or absence of venous thrombosis. The use of IVC filters in this population should be reexamined because filter removal rates are low and there is increased risk of morbidity in patients with filters that remain in place,” the study concludes.

See Association Between Inferior Vena Cava Filter Insertion in Trauma Patients and In-Hospital and Overall Mortality by Shayna Sarosiek, MD, Denis Rybin, PhD, Janice Weinberg, ScD, Peter A. Burke, MD, George Kasotakis, MD, and J. Mark Sloan, MD.

Should not be placed in trauma patients

“The use of IVC filters in this population should be reexamined because filter removal rates are low and there is increased risk of morbidity in patients with filters that remain in place,” the researchers said. “Given the expected morbidity of long-term IVC filter use, filters should be removed as soon as a patient’s contraindication to anticoagulation resolves.”

“Overall, these data indicate that IVC filters should not be placed in trauma patients in an effort to decrease all-cause mortality.”

Litigation against the makers of IVC filters is one of the largest mass torts today. “All these products are defective,” Mass Tort Consultant John Ray said, speaking in a webinar presented by The National Trial Lawyers. “I cannot say that one product is less defective than other.”

  • There are 886 cases in Bard IVC Filter Litigation in MDL 2641 before Judge David G. Campbell in US District Court in Arizona.
  • There are 993 cases in Cook Medical IVC Filter Litigation in MDL 2570 before Chief Judge Richard L. Young 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.
  • 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.
  • 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 Ray.
  • Similarly, there is no MDL for cases against Rex Medical and Argon Medical. Plaintiffs have filed cases in the Philadelphia Court of Common Pleas before Judge Arnold New, who has assigned them to the complex litigation track.

Venous thromboembolism is a significant cause of death in the United States. Approximately 900,000 patients per year have a clinically significant deep vein thrombosis or pulmonary embolism. Since the invention of the permanent percutaneous IVC filter in 1973 and the retrievable IVC filter in the 1990s, its use has become a standard part of treatment for select patients with acute lower-extremity venous thrombosis who cannot receive anticoagulation.

 

Read More

Bard Can Look Into Plaintiffs’ Communications With FDA Regarding IVC Filters

Bard Denali IVC Filter
Bard Denali IVC Filter

US District Judge David G. Campbell overseeing the C.R. Bard IVC filter multidistrict litigation ruled on Sept. 6 that the company can conduct discovery into the plaintiffs’ alleged efforts to influence the Food and Drug Administration.

But the company cannot inquire into the plaintiffs’ communications with NBC Nightly News or third-party litigation funding. The case is In Re: Bard IVC Filters Products Liability Litigation, MDL Docket No. 2641 in Arizona.

Bard said in its motion that it wants to discover any role plaintiffs or their counsel had with the FDA that may have biased the agency, that may reflect improper motivation for the letters and that signals that the letters lack “trustworthiness” for admissibility.

Bard also said five NBC Nightly News stories about Bard’s IVC filters have become the “focal point” for the plaintiffs and they have interviewed Bard witnesses after their appearance in the stories. Bard said the plaintiffs’ communications with NBC could have biased the stories and are thus relevant to Bard’s defense.

No Work Product Protection

Judge Campbell ordered the plaintiffs to respond to interrogatories about their contact with the FDA. He said the requests are relevant to the defense and “proportional to the needs of the case.”

“Plaintiffs have placed and will continue to place much emphasis on the FDA letters, and information regarding Plaintiffs’ role in securing those letters or otherwise influencing the FDA’s actions is plainly relevant to the defense,” the judge wrote.

The plaintiffs argued that the FDA information would be hearsay, but the judge said “information need not be admissible in evidence to be discoverable under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(b)(1).”

“Plaintiffs claim that their communications with the FDA are protected work product because they reveal mental impressions and strategies of counsel, but courts have widely held that communications with government regulators that might prompt government action that could prove beneficial in private litigation waive any work product protection,” the judge said.

As to discovery into the NBC stories, Judge Campbell denied the motion because the plaintiffs assured the court that the stories will not be used at trial.

There are 810 cases in the MDL.

For recent news developments, read:

Proof! C. R. Bard, Inc. has been Settling IVC Filter Cases

IVC Filter Cases Settling Quietly as Litigation Grows

 

Read More

Proof! C. R. Bard, Inc. has been Settling IVC Filter Cases

bard-ivc-filter-lawsuit-2As suspected, C.R. Bard, Inc. has indeed been settling IVC Filter cases, according to the 10-Q statement it filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on June 30.

“During the second quarter of 2013, the company finalized settlement agreements with respect to more than 30 Filter Product Claims and made payments with respect to such claims within the amounts previously recorded by the company,” the 10-Q states on page 13.

The information had not previously been made public.

Importantly, it also states, “…the company intends to vigorously defend Filter Product Claims that do not settle…” In other words, it will not defend cases that settle, thereby admitting that it is settling cases. The statement repeats word-for-word what the company said earlier in its 10-Q filing  dated September 2015 .

Mass Tort Expert John Ray said, “Bard has issues that will cause it to settle sooner rather than later. Bard got a lot of bad press about what they knew and when they knew it. Bottom line, Bard is going to settle, and they threw up the white flag in this statement to stockholders.” See IVC Filter Cases Settling Quietly as Litigation Grows.

770 plaintiffs

Bard IVC Filter Litigation is consolidated in MDL 2641, which was created in US District Court in Arizona in August 2015. The company faces 770 plaintiffs who have filed product liability cases over the company’s inferior vena cava (IVC) filter products. The company revealed:

  • Approximately 660 of the Filter Product Claims have been, or shortly will be, transferred to the IVC Filter MDL.
  • The additional 110 Filter Product Claims are pending in various state courts.
  • In March 2016, a Canadian class action was filed against the company in Quebec.
  • In April 2016 and May 2016, Canadian class actions were filed in Ontario and British Columbia, respectively.
  • This does not include approximately 40 claims that have been threatened against the company but for which complaints have not yet been filed.
  • The company expects that additional trials of Filter Product Claims may take place over the next 12 months.

The blood clot filters have been inserted in millions of patients over the last 40 years.

“All these products are defective,” Ray said, speaking in a webinar presented by The National Trial Lawyers. “I cannot say that one product is less defective than other.”

While specific settlements are suppressed by non-disclosure agreements, Ray said that a wrongful death case involving an IVC filter has a settlement value of $500,000. At the other extreme, a case involving the successful removal of an IVC filter without complications has a settlement value of $10,000.

Read More

IVC Filter Cases Settling Quietly as Litigation Grows

ivc filter2Manufacturers of defective IVC filter medical devices are settling cases behind the scenes, as litigation is building nationwide. The blood clot filters have been inserted in millions of patients over the last 40 years.

“All these products are defective,” said mass tort expert John Ray of Ft. Lauderdale, speaking in a webinar presented by The National Trial Lawyers. “I cannot say that one product is less defective than other.”

While specific settlements are suppressed by non-disclosure agreements, Ray said that a wrongful death case involving an IVC filter has a settlement value of $500,000. At the other extreme, a case involving the successful removal of an IVC filter without complications has a settlement value of $10,000.

  • Bard IVC Filter Litigation is consolidated in MDL 2641 in US District Court in Arizona. Bard essentially announced that it was settling cases in its September 2015 10-Q filing, where it stated, “While the company intends to vigorously defend Filter Product Claims that do not settle, including through litigation, it cannot give any assurances that the resolution of these claims will not have a material adverse effect on the company’s business…”  Ray says, “Bard has issues that will cause it to settle sooner rather than later. Bard got a lot of bad press about what they knew and when they knew it. Bottom line, Bard is going to settle, and they threw up the white flag in this statement to stockholders.”
  • 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. “There are many stipulated dismissals where no motion to dismiss has been filed,” Ray says. “Generally when you see this, the company is settling cases, but doing so privately. Will there be a mass settlement? Probably. But I am 99% sure that they have already settled a lot of cases.”
  • 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. According to Ray, plaintiffs can file cases there regardless of the original jurisdiction.
  • 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.
  • Similarly, there is no MDL for cases against Rex Medical and Argon Medical. Plaintiffs have filed cases in the Philadelphia Court of Common Pleas before Judge Arnold New, who has assigned them to the complex litigation track.

How were defective devices approved?

Ray said he solved the puzzle about how a group of medical devices so inherently defective won approval from the FDA. “It was a matter of timing,” he says. The first IVC filters were on the market prior to regulation by the Medical Device Act of 1976. The first IVC filter was approved using the 510(k) shortcut. “Once the first device was approved, every other device had a predicate device. They were all approved without ever being tested, without proving their satefy, without proving their efficacy.”

IVC filters are small, cage-like devices that are inserted into the inferior vena cava – a major vein leading directly to the heart. They were supposed to capture blood clots and prevent them from reaching the lungs.

However, attorney John Dalimonte of Boston identified three issues with the Cook Tulip and Celect IVC Filters.

  • Migration downward and upward. The IVC Filters can tilt or shift, making them almost impossible to remove.
  • Device fracture, causing blood clots (embolism) in the heart, lung, liver and kidneys. Research shows that the devices experienced fracture rates of 37% to 40% after five and a half years.
  • Perforation, where stress on the IVC Filter struts leads to fractures that puncture adjacent organs and vessels.

“There are a lot of cases out there,” Dalimonte says, because the manufacturers conducted off-label marketing directly to bariatric patients, trauma patients and orthopedic surgery patients.

He will be part of the panel of the September Mass Tort Nexus Course. John serves on the Steering Committee for the Bard and Cook MDLs. Contact barbara@masstortnexus.com or (954) 383-3932 for information on the September Course.

Read More

No Deposition for Bard President over Memo on IVC Filter Study

Jim C. Beasley Group President
Jim C. Beasley
Group President

US District Judge David G. Campbell ruled that plaintiffs in the Bard IVC Filters Products Liability Litigation cannot depose a top company executive about a 2010 memo he wrote to six Bard executives about a filter study.

However, the plaintiffs are free to try again later.

The executive, Jim Beasley, is a group president of C.R. Bard Inc. and was president of Bard Peripheral Vascular Inc. from 2007 to 2012. At the time Beasley was responsible for hundreds of Bard products.

The plaintiffs want to question him about the mystery memo, but the judge said “no” on August 29.  There Are 810 cases pending in MDL 2641, Case No. 15-md-2641 (Click to see sample long form complaints).

“The Court concludes that Beasley ‘is clearly a high-level executive,’ and that the apex doctrine therefore applies,” the judge held.  Klungvedt v. Unum Grp., Case No. 2:12-CV-00651-JWS, (D. Ariz. Feb. 13, 2013). “The relevant questions, then, are ‘whether the executive has unique, first-hand, non-repetitive knowledge of the facts at issue in the case and whether the party seeking the deposition has exhausted other less intrusive discovery methods.’”

The exhibits provided by Plaintiffs:

  • Suggest that someone named Mark was going to talk to Beasley about a filter study.
  • Confirm that Beasley was the author of a management memo written in 2010.
  • Beasley addressed the memo to Tim Ring and copied to at least five others.
  • It contained speculation by Daniel Orms about what Beasley might have known or done in connections with the memo.

However, the materials did not show that Beasley has unique, first-hand, non-repetitive knowledge of the facts at issue in this case, nor that Plaintiffs have exhausted other less intrusive discovery methods to obtain relevant information.

“The Court therefore concludes that Beasley should not be deposed at this time. If Plaintiffs conclude that they can make the required showing at a later point during the discovery period, they may raise this issue again with the Court.”

Read More