Caseload Growing in Philadelphia Against Rex and Argon in IVC Filter Litigation

Option Elite IVC Filter Litigation Rex Medical L.P., the designer of the Option and Option Elite IVC Filters as well as the distributor of these products, Argon Medical, face a growing number of lawsuits related to injuries that plaintiffs’ complaints allege were caused by these devices. (See a detailed list of complaints and attorneys below.)

We believe the majority, if not all, claims against Rex and Argon have been filed in the Philadelphia Court of Common Pleas. Plaintiffs claim that jurisdiction is proper in the Philadelphia Court of Common Pleas under Pennsylvania Law partially due to the Pennsylvania citizenship of Rex Medical.

Although attorneys practicing in the IVC Filter litigation are well aware of the Bard  IVC Filter Litigation and Cook IVC Filter Federal Multidistrict Litigation, far less has been published about the Rex and Argon Medical IVC Filter Litigation underway in Philadelphia.

Pennsylvania allows for consolidation of common claims brought by plaintiffs against the same defendant. Although these consolidations are not Federal MDLs, they function much in the same manner.

Claims may be brought by plaintiffs against defendants in these consolidated litigations without regard to the plaintiff’s citizenship, so long as the plaintiff’s citizenship is within the United States.

Numerous medical device and pharmaceutical consolidated litigations have been heard in the Philadelphia Court of Common Pleas including the Risperdal Product Liability Litigation as well as a consolidated Xarelto Product Liability Litigation which is currently on going, while a Federal MDL also exists related to the same basic issues.

Currently, Judge Arnold New has designated the cases against Rex/Argon to the “Complex Litigation” track. Although the cases have yet to be consolidated for adjudication in the MDL-like process, we expect this to occur as more cases are filed in the Pa. Court of Common Pleas.

Judge New oversees all consolidated litigation in the Court of Common Pleas.

 

Plaintiffs Cases Filed Against Rex Medical and Argon Medical

Philadelphia Court of Common Pleas

Click on the Case Description to Access all documents including complaints for individual plaintiff cases:

Case Description

Date Filed

Case ID

Plaintiff Residence

Filter

Injury

DURBIN VS REX MEDICAL  17-Oct-16 161002290 California Option Efficacy

Injury

STOKAN VS REX MEDICAL  10-Oct-16 161001150 Arizona Option

Elite

Occlusion

Penetration

DUGAS VS REX MEDICAL 9-Sep-16 160900897 Texas Option Fracture

Migration

HARRIS VS REX MEDICAL 14-Jun-16 160601343 Georgia Option Injury

Other

MILLER VS REX MEDICAL 14-Jun-16 160601344 Louisiana Option Injury

Other

CASEMAN VS REX MEDICAL 7-Mar-16 160300207 Ohio Option Irretrievable

Injury

MONPLAISIR VS REX MEDICAL  3-Oct-16 161000070 Florida Option Injury

Death

AMOUR-WEST VS REX MEDICAL 13-Oct-16 161001566 Tennessee Option Injury

Other

STRODE VS REX MEDICAL  6-Sep-16 160900127 Tennesse Option Injury

Death

TURNER VS REX MEDICAL 5-Aug-16 160800773 Mississippi Option Fracture

Migration

THOMAS VS REX MEDICAL 8-Apr-16 160400816 Colorado Option

Elite

Irretrievable

Embedded

 Attorneys Filing Cases Against Rex Medical and Argon Medical

Philadelphia Court of Common Pleas

 

EISENBERG, ROTHWEILER, WINKLER, EISENBERG & JECK, P.C.

 

Stewart J. Eisenberg
Spruce Street Philadelphia, PA 19103
stewart@erlegal.com
215.546.6636

Villari Brandes & Giannone P.C.
Peter M Villari
Nicole T. Matteo
8 Tower Bridge
Suite 400
161 Washington Street
Conshohocken, PA 19428
(610) 832-8050
SEEGER WEISS LLP

Terri Anne Benedetto
1515 MARKET STREET, SUITE 1380
PHILADELPHIA PA 19102
tbenedetto@seegerweiss.com
(215)564-2300

NASTLAW LLC
1101 MARKET STREET
SUITE 2801
PHILADELPHIA PA 19107
(215)923-9300
 CURTIS LAW GROUP
William B. Curtis
12225 Greenville Ave
Suite 750 Dallas, TX 75243
bcurtis@curtis-lawgroup.com
214.890.1000
LAW OFFICES OF BEN C. MARTIN  
Ben C. Martin
3710 Rawlins Street, Suite 1230
Dallas, Texas 75219
bmartin@bencmartin.com
214.761.6614
FREESE AND GOSS, PLLC

 

Tim K. Goss
2905 Sackett St.
Houston, Texas 77098
tim@freeseandgoss.com
713.522.5250

MATTHEWS & ASSOCIATES
David P. Matthews
Lizy Santiago
3031 Allen Street, Suite 200
dmatthews@thematthewslawfirm.com
lsantiago@thematthewslawfirm.com
214.761.6610
Lopez McHugh, LLP

 

James J. McHugh, Jr
Carrie R. Capouellez
214 Flynn Avenue Moorestown
NJ 08057
ccapouellez@lopezmchugh.com
(856) 273-8500

Wagstaff & Cartmell, LLP

 

Thomas P. Cartmell
David C. DeGreeff
4740 Grand Ave.
Suite 300
Kansas City, MO 64112
(816) 701-1100

Read More

FDA Warns Public about Dangerous IVC Filter Side Effects

Bard Denali IVC Filter 2013
Bard Denali IVC Filter 2013

In a public safety communication, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) says it has received approximately 920 adverse event reports related to the use of IVC filters, It issued a public report to inform medical professionals and patients about the potential risks associated with using the small, cage-like device. Adverse events reported by the FDA include:

  • Filter fracturing of the device
  • Migration of the pieces
  • Embolization of fractured device or device components
  • Tearing of the inferior vena cava vein.

Cordis IVC Filter Litigation is consolidated in California State Court. Bard IVC Filter Litigation is consolidated in MDL 2641. Cook Medical IVC Filter Litigation is consolidated in MDL 2570.

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,” said Mass Tort Consultant John Ray.

According to one of the many product liability cases filed against IVC Filter manufacturers:

“Defendants knew or should have known that its Cook Filter when used as expected and intended, had the possibility of shifting, breaking free its implantation site, migrating, perforating the vena cava, and causing serious injury and/or death to patients.”

The case is Olenda Homes et al. v. Cook Medical Inc. et al. (Case No. 5:16-cv-00066).

Patients who cannot use traditional blood-thinning drugs are usually the typical users of IVC filters. The devices are surgically implanted into a patient’s inferior vena cava vein and are designed to catch blood clots from the legs before they migrate to the heart and lungs, which could cause a pulmonary embolism if it reached these important organs. The filters are meant to only be used temporarily, according to the FDA, and hold the clot until it naturally disappears and until the threat of blood clots is no longer an issue.

IVC filters have come under more intense scrutiny and have been the subject of many lawsuits due to allegations that they have fractured with pieces subsequently migrating away from the original insertion point to other parts of the body. The pieces can tear veins and organs, and embed in other “high risk” areas of the body where they cannot be surgically removed, thus causing significant and long-term risks for the patient.

In its report, the FDA identifies a number of potential symptoms of migrating pieces that patients should be on guard for that include out of the ordinary heart rhythms, dizziness, fainting, heart palpitations, and chest pain.

 

Read More