IVC filter lawyers want a multi district court to handle litigation involving Bard IVC filters. Twelve plaintiffs’ law firms, including Matthews & Associates, petitioned the U.S. Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation (JPML) to centralize lawsuits involving C.R. Bard IVC filters into one federal court.
Headquartered in New Jersey, CR Bard makes the Recovery, G2, and G2 Express filters. These temporary implants are supposed to be retrieved after they are no longer necessary, but their design makes that task exceedingly difficult. The longer they remain inside a patient, the higher the risk becomes of filter fracture, migration, organ damage and more.
In the May 18, 2015 motion to consolidate the Bard IVC filter litigation, lawyers said hundreds of lawsuit may eventually be filed; therefore they requested centralization in Texas or Nevada.
The Plaintiffs’ Brief for MDL Court Request
The motion alleges that recent studies show the filters don’t work:
In fact, the filters have been shown to double the risk of pulmonary embolism, the very condition which they are intended to prevent. The filed cases generally allege defective design, misrepresentation in marketing, and failure to warn doctors and patients adequately about the risks of the devices and for refusing to warn that the filters were not effective – in other words that they did not work – and that they increased the risk that the patients receiving their filters would be more likely to develop a pulmonary embolus than if there was no filter implanted at all. . .
The brief in support of plaintiffs’ motion for transfer also points to the fact – in request of consolidation – that at least 25 cases have been filed in 23 different federal jurisdictions all over the U.S., including Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, Texas, Nebraska, Michigan, Mississippi, Georgia, Louisiana, Florida, Tennessee, New Mexico, California, Illinois, Virginia, Missouri, New York and Ohio.
Dismal Filter Retrieval Record
Recent studies have found that as many as 12% of the Bard IVC filters broke. Doctors, meanwhile, were able to retrieve the tiny pieces in only 54% of patients.
Other IVC Filter Cases Consolidated
Judges are expected to consolidate IVC filter cases against C.R. Bard. Last year, they centralized dozens of similar lawsuits against Cook Medical into a Multi-District Litigation court (MDL No. 2550) in the Southern District of Indiana. Some 102 lawsuits involving Cook IVC filters are now pending before Judge Richard L. Young, according to an update (PDF) posted by the JPML on July 15.
IVC Filter Lawyers
“It would seem to make sense for judges to consolidate the Bard cases into a multi district litigation court,” said attorney David Matthews, who signed the plaintiff’s motion for the Bard cases transfer and is a member of the steering committee for the Cook IVC filter litigation in Indiana. “MDLs can be effective for consistent rulings, expedited discovery and bellwether trials, if handled by experienced judges and lawyers. However, that rule is often the exception. Thankfully, our courts in this country allow state court actions continuing concurrently with MDL proceedings. Many times it’s impossible for one MDL court to adjudicate all issues concerning a mass tort litigation.”
Contact an IVC Filter Attorney
Matthews & Associates Law Firm handles both federal MDL litigation and state court actions in IVC filter litigation, as well as many other medical device and pharmaceutical drug cases. Contact the firm for a free legal consultation if you or someone you love was injured by a Bard IVC filter.
- IVC Filter Lawsuit
- Bard IVC Filter Lawsuit
- Cook Blood Clot Filter Lawsuits
- Cook IVC Filter Attorney
- IVC Filters fail to improve anticoagulant therapy
by Matthews & Associates