Dallas Federal Jury Finds Bard's IVC Blood Clot Filter Defective

Dallas Federal Jury Finds Bard's IVC Blood Clot Filter Defective

Introduction

In the latest IVC lawsuit, Jurors in Dallas federal court have concluded that C.R. Bard's IVC blood clot filter design is defective, which resulted in injuries and complications for the users. It is the fourth lawsuit since May.

The lawyer representing the plaintiffs has informed Bard about the defective products and indicated that the cases would be continued in trials until the company takes responsibility for the products. Ben Martin overlooks lawsuits representing several hundred individuals who claim that Bard's line of IVC filters resulted in severe injuries and complications for them. The products include Denali, Meridian, Eclipse, G2, G2X and recovery. The filters prevent blood clots from moving to the hearts and lungs when inserted into the inferior vena cava (IVC).

The lawsuits allege that the filter perforates and fractures vein walls. It also causes the metal pieces of the device to displace and move into internal organs and other structures in the body of the user. There is not even any evidence that claims the device prevents pulmonary emboli. It is difficult or impossible to remove the filter even though Bard claims that the filters are easily removable.

Earlier, Bard faced more than 8,000 similar lawsuits, which were consolidated in multidistrict litigation in Phoenix. The lawyer even rejected a proposed settlement citing that it was inadequate, and eventually embraced a more aggressive strategy by scheduling individual trials across the U.S.

Jurors of the Dallas case ordered a verdict of $386,250 in damages as they found that Bard's Recovery IVC filter caused serious medical complications to the users.

Earlier, a woman was awarded a $3.3 million verdict by a Wisconsin federal jury in an IVC filter lawsuit against C.R. Bard that claimed a part of the filter became embedded in her heart.

The jury held the company responsible for not issuing an appropriate warning of the risks associated with the device. The plaintiff had implanted the filter in 2013 as a preventive measure for varicose veins. 

The jury found that the woman was not at all liable for her fracture and the complete blame is to be put on the manufacturer for negligence and design claims.

As per the court documents, the woman started experiencing abdominal pain just after three days of the implant as the filter had tilted and one strut had perforated her inferior vena cava, as indicated in the CT scan. A year later x-ray revealed that the filter was even more tilted and had fractured two struts, with one strut in the inferior vena cava and the other in the right ventricle of her heart.

In 2014, a surgeon tried to remove the filter but did not succeed, but four years later another surgeon managed to remove the filter and a strut, but one of the struts remained in her right ventricle.

The woman is suffering from extreme anxiety about the possible harm she might suffer due to the remainder of the strut in her body. She would require to undergo open-heart surgery to get the strut removed from the right ventricle, which could result in significant morbidity and death.

Bard argued that considering the separate finding on liability, U.S. District Judge William M. Conley should not reward punitive damages to the plaintiff as there is no clear evidence about the manufacturer being negligent about the product.

The attorney for the plaintiff said that the verdict was for compensatory damages and in the past 90 days he along with other attorneys obtained three jury verdicts in Texas, Oregon, and Wisconsin in similar vein lawsuits.

The plaintiff even argued that three different juries in three different states have consistently claimed that the Bard IVC filters caused serious harm to the users due to their unacceptable safety profile.
Bard faced three bellwether trials in the MDL in 2018 where one of the trials ended up awarding $3.6 million to the plaintiff.