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

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

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

Considerations for Plaintiff Attorneys when Starting a Successful Mass Tort Practice

John Ray
John Ray

Mass Tort Litigation has emerged as the only effective check on pharmaceutical and medical device companies that make dangerous products injuring thousands of Americans. Mass tort attorneys have filed 140,000 lawsuits in 250 federal multidistrict litigation dockets as of September 2016.

Many attorneys are expanding their personal injury practices to include mass torts because the US Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation has organized the litigation so effectively against the multi-billion-dollar drug and medical device industry.

“The FDA is not a check or a balance on the pharmaceutical industry,” said Mass Tort Nexus Consultant John Ray, recently teaching a four-day course about mass torts in Fort Lauderdale, FL. “Plaintiff attorneys are the only check on the pharmaceutical industry.”

In recent years mass tort lawyers have recovered $10 billion in settlements for injured Americans: $4.8 billion for Vioxx, $1.8 billion for Yaz, $1.3 billion for the Stryker hip and $2.5 billion for the DePuy hip.

“The drug companies bake these cases into their business model,” Ray said. “Defendants call it a win when they don’t put a warning on their labels, don’t get sued and don’t have to pay a judgment at all. This means they got away with it. That happens a lot.”

When a federal MDL is created, the supervising judge will approve a standard short-form or long-form complaint, plus a plaintiffs’ fact sheet which replaces interrogatories. The consolidation of cases means that a mass tort lawyer can file a notice of appearance and file cases regardless of the jurisdiction of the plaintiff, defendant company or the location of the plaintiff’s attorney.

Criteria for a viable case

Cases that are attracting many mass tort attorneys now involve Xarelto, IVC filters and Pradaxa. Among the many factors determining the viability of a mass tort are:

  • Preemption. Congress has expressly preempted certain claims. Further, courts have ruled that generic manufacturers cannot be sued.
  • Statute of limitations: State laws govern when the statute of limitations starts to run, but in most federal litigation, the date that the FDA issues a “black box warning” for a drug marks the date when the time limit begins to run.
  • Legal viability. In many cases, research will show a connection between a drug and injuries among patients, but specific causation must be proved in a trial. Experts must be found who will survive a Daubert motion to disqualify.
  • Financial viability of the defendant. While Johnson & Johnson had $46.8 billion in annual income in 2015, some small makers of IVC filters went out of business before they could sell one.
  • Average case value. The average Pradaxa case settled for $160,000 in 2014, with some settlements valued up to $500,000, according to a grid created by US District Judge David R. Herndon.
  • Plaintiff numerosity. Cases in the Syngenta Corn Market Crash Litigation involve every corn producer in America, and IVC Filters have been implanted in millions of patients over the last 40 years.
  • Cost per client acquired. Costs can add up with Facebook advertising, website marketing, and lead generation companies. For example, The Sentinal Group will advertise for clients for a fee of $100,000 to obtain 250 calls for Xarelto plaintiffs, with 1 out of 5 calls leading to a signed client.
  • Case duration. Mass torts are litigation for the long haul, with the average case lasting 5 years and 4 months before settlement, according to Ray, with 7 years being a good benchmark for the duration of a case.
  • Case value. An example of a good outcome is with Pradaxa. The average settlement is $162,000. Calculating 40% in gross contingent fees would equal $64,800. Another 7% is deducted ($4,536) for the common benefit to pay the steering committee. Of the remaining fee of $60,204, a 40% referral fee of $24,015 is deducted for the co-counsel that handled the litigation. This leaves a net fee of $36,189 for the attorney who originated the case.
  • Financial resources. Costs to fund a case can be in the tens of thousands of dollars, with costs reaching hundreds of thousands for members of the plaintiffs steering committee.
  • Personnel resources. A law firm will have to train a small army of intake specialists to answer incoming calls when advertising is running. Additional personnel will be needed to obtain and review medical records.

Perfect timing

There are three phases of mass tort litigation, and perfect timing will be needed to enter a particular case.

Emerging Phase Cases. In this early phase, the cost to acquire a client is the least expensive, but there many issues of case viability. For example, the courts are still considering motions to consolidate cases involving Abilify and Roundup. With Abilify the FDA has issued a safety warning but not a black box warning. With Roundup the EPA has not classified the herbicide as a carcinogen, but foreign governments have.

Litigation Phase Cases. It is considered an ideal time to enter into a mass tort when the JPML has created a multi-litigation docket (MDL). Some 250 MDLs include mature litigation involving Benicar, Lipitor, Viagra, Xarelto and Zofran, and many legal issues have been settled. The supervising judge will schedule bellwether or test cases for trial.

Settlement Phase Cases. This is the very safest time to enter litigation because all an attorney must do is find qualified plaintiffs. Example cases involve transvaginal mesh, Levaquin and Pradaxa. However at this late phase the cost to acquire a client is at its highest.

“Whatever you do, maintain your single-event plaintiff’s practice,” Ray advised. “You will have to keep paying the costs of a mass tort case until it settles, and you will need a huge cash supply or credit line.”

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

Emerging and Ongoing Mass Tort Litigation Update

MTN

You can’t miss this!
 

Mass Tort Nexus has added the hottest emerging litigation to its September Course: RoundUp Litigation. This could be the biggest mass tort since asbestos.

In addition to the hands-on practical knowledge all course attendees receive, we are privileged to have an all-star panel of attorney speakers discussing current, emerging and ongoing Mass Tort litigations.

Best of all, this program will be interactive.  There will be ample Q&A after each presentation.

Whether you have dabbled in Mass Torts or are new to the practice area, the “Four Day Mass Tort Success Course” will help you avoid common mistakes, while giving you a road map to success in Mass Torts.  We teach you a step by step process to make sure you understand the methods and metrics of this practice area.

Please join us  Sept 23rd  – Sept 26th for the “Four Days to Mass Tort Success Course” in Fort Lauderdale.  Contact Barbara Capasso at (954) 383-3932 or barbara@masstortnexus.com for more information.

RoundUp Cancer Emerging Litigation 
 
timothy-litzenburg-200x300

Timothy Litzenberg will be addressing the emerging RoundUp Cancer litigation. Timothy filed one of the original complaints in district court on behalf of a client who developed cancer after exposure to RoundUp. He is also one of the attorneys supporting the Plaintiffs’ motion to consolidate and transfer (i.e., to form an MDL) currently before the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation.

In district court, Monsanto failed to derail the RoundUp litigation. Monsanto, as well as Plaintiffs attorneys including Tim have now separately moved to support the formation of an MDL. This emerging Toxic Tort may involve more plaintiffs than any in history. Do not miss out on the chance to get information on this litigation in its early
stages. 
IVC Filter Product Liability Litigation

John Dalimonte now serves on the Steering Committee of the Cook Medical IVC filter litigation and the Bard IVC filter Litigation. He will be speaking about  the Cook and Bard IVC litigations, as well as other ongoing and emerging IVC Filter Litigation, which involve more IVC manufacturers. John has served in leadership positions on a number of MDLs and was Co-Lead Counsel in the Vioxx product liability litigation.

The IVC filter litigation may be one of the largest mass product liability litigation’s of all time, with respect to the number of plaintiffs and payouts. This litigation puts the “complex” in complex litigation and the opportunity to interact with one of the leading attorneys in this case is invaluable.
Proton Pump Inhibitor Product Liability Litigation

Bryan Aylstock will present the emerging Proton Pump Inhibitor litigation. Bryan is currently serving as one of three coordinating Co-Lead Counsel members charged with overseeing five separate Multi-District Litigations (MDLs), involving the use of TVM products. Additionally, Bryan has served in leadership positions in the Zoloft product liability litigation, the Avandia product liability litigation, as well as other MDLs.

Bryan is an outstanding lawyer and arguably one of the best business minds in Mass Torts. The opportunity to get in on the ground floor of an emerging litigation with guidance from a tested Mass Tort gladiator is worth the trip to Fort Lauderdale.

 Risperdal Product Liability Litigation

Derek Braslow will be speaking about the Risperdal product liability litigation. Derek now serves as Liaison Counsel in the Risperdal litigation and has served in many Court-appointed leadership positions in other pharmaceutical litigations. He has been in leadership positions on many MDLs, including Co-Liaison Counsel Zimmer Durom Hip Cup, as well as leadership positions in the Levaquin product liability litigation and the Paxil suicide litigation.

The Risperdal litigation is not a typical Mass Tort litigation. Derek’s insights on the Risperdal case will give knowledge and information that will be useful far beyond this single litigation.
 
Talcum Powder Product Liability Litigation
 
James Onder will be speaking on the subject of the Talcum Powder litigation. He is one of the lead attorneys in the City of Saint Louis consolidation, which has already produced multiple Jury verdicts exceeding fifty million dollars each.
James, and other members of his firm, have served as co-lead counsel and in various leadership positions on many MDLs. The opportunity to hear James speak about a difficult litigation, that he and his co-counsel firms managed to achieve massive jury awards in will be  an opportunity you won’t want  to miss.  
 
Xarelto Litigation
&
Stryker Hip Litigation “Life After the MDL”
 

Joseph Osborne will be speaking on the Stryker Hip Litigation, as well as other Hip Implant litigation. Long after other firms stopped accepting or seeking clients for the metal on metal hip implant litigations, Joseph continued to accept clients who were, and continue to be, injured by these defective products.He served in leadership positons on the Stryker Nexgen Knee MDL, the Biomet M2 Hip MDL, the Stryker Hip MDL, the American Medical System TVM MDL, as well as many other multidistrict litigations.

Joe also serves on the Science Committee in the Xarelto MDL and will be providing information about this litigation.
 
Taxotere, Onglyza and Fluoroquinolones
 
Ryan Thompson will round out the panel speaking and answering questions about three litigations every firm should be considering.  Not yet forty years old, Ryan has already achieved a record of achievements, that most lawyers would consider a stellar lifetime career. He served as Co-Lead Counsel on the Incretin Memetics Litigation, as well as in leadership positions on many MDLs. Ryan is often involved in emerging litigations in a major way. His grasp of the science involved in pharmaceutical and medical device litigation and his willingness to take risks have resulted in his incredible rise in the world of Mass Tort litigation.
One of Ryan’s early victories involved taking on a major credit reporting agency and collecting 28 Million dollars, in a litigation other firms had overlooked. Ryan brings a unique perspective to mass torts. It is a privilege to hear Ryan speak and even more of a privilege to get to know him.

Contact Barbara Capasso at (954) 383-3932 or barbara@masstortnexus.com for information and to book your seat for the September Course.

 

Read More

Federal Court Orders Bellwether Trials in Cook IVC Filter Cases

Cook Celect® IVC Filter
Cook Celect IVC Filter

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.

 

Read More