Judge Confirms IVC Filter Malfunction and Punitive Damages Award

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:

• Scientific Authors Agree That IVC Filters May Have Been Overused In Anticipation of Blood Clots Occurring | 2/26/2022
• IVC Filter Use Has Skyrocketed And So Have Patient Complaints | 2/22/2022
• IVC Filter Removal Continues To Generate Controversy In Medical Circles | 2/12/2022
• Pulmonary Embolism Kills Over 100,000 People Each Year Hospitalized With Traumatic Injury | 2/7/2022
• Bard Faces Thousands Of IVC Filter Lawsuits Over The Product's Unique Inherent Design Defects | 2/2/2022
• Stanford's Dr. Kuo Has Helped Pioneer Advanced IVC Filter Laser Retrieval | 1/28/2022
• Doctors Struggle With Deciding When Is The Optimal Time To Remove A Patient's IVC Filter | 1/14/2022
• Doctors May Use IVC Filters More Often Now That Laser Removal Is An Option | 1/10/2022
• IVC Filter Lasers Highlights Focus Attention On Removal Complications | 1/4/2022
• IVC Filter Retrieval Complications Have Been Known For Years | 12/30/2021
• Lasers May Now Enable Doctors To Safely Retrieve Embedded IVC Filters | 12/22/2021
• IVC Filters May Do Nothing To Prevent Death Or Pulmonary Embolism For Trauma Patients | 12/16/2021
• IVC Filters Can Help Save The Lives Of Young People That Experience Multiple Sudden Blood Clots | 12/1/2021
• The FDA Recommends That An IVC Filter Stay In Place No Longer Than Two Months | 11/26/2021
• Bard Sales Reps, Surgeons, And Even The FDA All Looked The Other Way And Failed To Warn IVC Filter Patients | 11/18/2021
• Ozone Cleaning Products Are Not FDA Approved And May Be Responsible For CPAP Foam Insulation Breakdown | 11/12/2021
• Patients Should Know Of All Of The Risks Of Having An IVC Filter Implanted To Trap Blood Clots | 11/12/2021
• Blood Clot Patients Chest Pain Patients Are Talking To IVC Filter Lawyers About Holding Bard Accountable | 11/5/2021
• The IVC Filter Is Substantially Similar To The Faulty And Defective Essure Birth Control Device | 11/1/2021
• The Food And Drug Administration Has Been Warning Surgeons About The IVC Filters Design Flaws For More Than A decade | 10/28/2021
• IVC Filter Heart Pain Could Be From The Device Having Fractured Into Pieces | 10/25/2021
• Bellwether Bard IVC Filter Lawsuit Highlights The Design Flaws | 10/20/2021
• IVC Filters Could Be Unnecessary If A Person Leads A Healthy Lifestyle | 10/15/2021
• The EPA's Farm Flagger Ban Came Decades Too Late for Thousands of Farm Workers Who Now Have Parkinson's disease | 10/12/2021
• Bard IVC Filters May Tilt, Migrate and Perforate The Artery Where They Were Implanted | 10/11/2021
• A Report Published In 2006 Documented IVC Filter Catastrophies | 10/5/2021
• Medical Safety Groups Call For The End of the FDA Fast-Track Medical Device Approval Process | 9/30/2021
• IVC Filters May Not Be Needed And Offer No Reduction In Mortality | 9/27/2021
• IVC Filters Are Implanted As A Last Resort And Left In Place Only If Blood Clotting Continues And There Is No Alternative | 9/24/2021
• IVC Filters Are A Bad Idea Fraught With Life-Threating Complications | 9/20/2021
• Doctors May Consider Vitamin K Anti-Coagulant Therapy Before Recommending IVC Filters | 9/15/2021
• Surgeons May Not Be Able To Retreive the Bard IVC Filter After Two or Three Months | 9/11/2021
• A High Failure Rate For IVC Filter Removal Can Be Expected And Surgeons Should Prepare For The Worse | 9/7/2021
• Thousands Of IVC Filters May Eventually Experience Catastrophic Failure | 9/2/2021
• Most Bard IVC Filters are Doomed To Failure and Surgeons Would Never Attempt To Retrieve It | 8/31/2021
• A California Jury Finds The Bard IVC Filter Is Negligently Designed | 8/27/2021
• Scar Tissue Build Up After 60 Days May Prevent Safe Bard IVC Filter Removal | 8/23/2021
• IVC Filter Removal Requires Using Force When Trapped In Place By Scar Tissue | 8/19/2021
• Bard IVC Filters Have Caused Severe Damage More Than 10% Of The Time | 8/14/2021
• A Fourth Jury Finds Bard IVC Filters Defective | 8/10/2021
• Patients With IVC Filters Should Contact Their Physicians Immediately | 12/21/2018
• Lawsuits Filed Across Wide Variety of IVC Filter Manufacturers | 12/18/2018
• IVC Filter Patients May Be Eligible to File A Claim Against CR Bard | 12/13/2018
• IVC Filter Manufacturers Profit When Patients Misinformed | 12/10/2018
• IVC Filter Litigation is Growing Every Day | 12/7/2018
• Doctors May Be Neglecting IVC Filter Device Patients | 12/4/2018
• CR Bard Forced To Compensate Injured IVC Filter Patients | 11/27/2018
• Bellwether Trials Underway For Bard IVC Filters | 8/29/2018
• The Bard IVC Filter May Not Have Been Adequately Tested | 8/27/2018

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.