Information about Bard IVC Filter Lawsuits from Lawyers Handling IVC Filter Lawsuits

No-Cost, No-Obligation Bard IVC Filter Lawsuit Review

IVC Filter Lawsuits

Judge Confirms IVC Filter Malfunction and Punitive Damages Award

Bard IVC Filter Lawsuits

It is usually better to know the answer to a question before asking it. Failing to do so may do more harm than good and reinforce an opponent's case unnecessarily

Friday, August 31, 2018 - Challenging a jury verdict can prevent a defendant from having to pay millions of dollars in punitive damages, however, the challenge can also be a double edge sword and reinforce the guilt of the defendant, negatively affecting the outcome of trials going forward. Such was the case recently when attorneys for CR Bard sought to overturn the $3.6 million dollar jury award given to a woman who was severely injured by the malfunctioning of the Barc Inferior Vena Cava (IVC) filter. The defendant argued that findings on the grounds of strict liability were inconsistent with the finding of negligent failure to warn. The judge disagreed stating that the plaintiff had proved beyond a reasonable doubt that "that the G2 filter failed at higher rates than other filters, including Bard's own Simon Nitinol Filter, and that Bard failed to warn plaintiff's treating physicians about these higher rates." The judge also made note of the reports to Bard of "filter migration" starting almost immediately after the product's launch. Bard's own internal engineers admitted to each other in memos that the reported failures were only a small fraction of what the actual failures were and that the design of the filter could lead to the device "tilting, fracturing and perforating" other organs in the body. The judge found that in every way the evidence supported the jury's findings. It was also proven that had the physicians in question known about the device's higher than normal failure rate, they may have chosen an alternative medical device. Finally, the judge confirmed the amount of the punitive damages as being appropriate since Bard executives had prior knowledge of the device's failure rate and deliberately chose not to warn physicians.

In response to the over 4000 lawsuits currently filed against the company, Bard officially updated their website's homepage to reflect their concern stating: "Vena cava filters are implanted by physicians only after careful consideration of the risks and benefits of the device in light of each patient's condition. When used as instructed, Bard IVC Filters demonstrate significant benefits to patients and have a safety profile consistent with the medical guidelines published by the American College of Radiology (ACR) and Society of Interventional Radiology (SIR)."

The Bard IVC (inferior vena cava) Filters are designed to protect patients at risk of a condition called Recurrent Pulmonary Embolism, a life-threatening condition with limited treatment options. Patients suffering from recurrent pulmonary embolism were treated in the past with blood thinners. Having an inferior vena cava (IVC) filter implanted to catch and remove the clots before they reach the lungs is often the last resort for those where blood thinners are not an option.

The judge's confirmation of the multi-million dollar jury award is encouraging to the thousands of others that have filed a claim against Bard. If you have had the Bard IVC filter implanted and have suffered pain requiring the device's removal you may consult with an IVC filter lawyer to see if you qualify to sue the company. The most frequent Bard IVC filter problems include migration to heart or lungs, strut fractures and perforation.

More Recent IVC Filter Lawsuit News:

No-Cost, No-Obligation Bard IVC Filter Lawsuit Case Review for Persons or Families of Persons Who Suffered from Organ Damage, Severe Bleeding, Stroke, or Death

OnderLaw, LLC is a St. Louis personal injury law firm handling serious injury and death claims across the country. Its mission is the pursuit of justice, no matter how complex the case or strenuous the effort. The Onder Law Firm has represented clients throughout the United States in pharmaceutical and medical device litigation such as Pradaxa, Lexapro and Yasmin/Yaz, where the firm's attorneys held significant leadership roles in the litigation, as well as Actos, DePuy, Risperdal and others, and other law firms throughout the nation often seek its experience and expertise on complex litigation.