Articles Tagged with C.R. Bard

Published on:

Seven years after filing suit, a North Carolina woman and her husband were awarded $68 million dollars for serious injuries caused by C.R. Bard’s defective pelvic mesh products.

Surgeon implants C.R. Bard pelvic mesh into woman
In 2009 Mary McGinnis was implanted with the Avaulta Solo Support System and Align Trans-Obturator Yrethral Support System, two pelvic mesh products manufactured and sold by C.R. Bard, Inc. and other defendants. Ms. McGinnis was implanted with these mesh products in an attempt to treat Ms. McGinnis’ stress urinary incontinence and to provide bladder support. Shortly after implantation of the mesh, Ms. McGinnis began having severe pains from nerve damage and pain during sex. She had to undergo several surgeries to attempt to correct the problems.

Ms. McGinnis and her husband filed suit in 2011, alleging that C.R. Bard knew the pelvic mesh was unsafe at the time the products were implanted in Ms. McGinnis, and that Bard failed to warn doctors about the dangers of the Avaulta and Align pelvic mesh. At trial lawyers for Bard argued that the Defendants met all industry standards and requirements for placing the Avaulta and Align mesh products on the markets.

Published on:

Plaintiff Sherri Booker Wins Jury Verdict Against C.R. Bard
Victims of C.R. Bard’s IVC filters got some great news two weeks ago. An Arizona jury in the first bellwether trial awarded a woman $3.6 million for injuries she suffered after Bard’s “G2” IVC filter broke into pieces in her inferior vena cava vein, requiring open heart surgery to remove the broken pieces.

The plaintiff, Sherri Booker, was implanted with Bard G2 IVC filter to prevent blood clots from reaching the heart and lungs. The problem was, the G2 moved inside her inferior vena cava (it is not supposed to move), then it broke apart. In 2014, she had to undergo open heart surgery. The surgeon was not able to retrieve all the broken pieces.

The Jury’s Verdict

Published on:

Bard IVC Filter MDL Arizona I would chalk up this court decision as a victory for any injured person dealing with the C.R. Bard IVC filter. I would also chalk up the decision as yet another example of the complexities of handling statutes of limitations in defective product cases.

As always, let’s take a step back. I have written about C.R. Bard’s potentially dangerous IVC filters, which you can read about here and here. In 2015 a multidistrict litigation (MDL) site was selected for lawsuits arising from injuries relating to Bard’s G2 Series and Recovery IVC filters. The primary complaints have been that the Bard IVC filters moved out of position and/or broke apart. Lawsuits mounted, and the MDL was formed.

Lurking in virtually every personal injury case is a statute of limitations defense. I wrote about statutes of limitations here. To recap, a statute of limitations is a law which limits the time when an injured person may bring a lawsuit for money damages. You miss the deadline, you lose your right to bring a lawsuit forever.

But as I have discussed before, determining when the clock starts running on your injury case is far from easy.

Bard Lawyers Sought Rigid Framework For Statute of Limitations Analysis

In the Bard IVC filter MDL, C.R. Bard lawyers filed a motion seeking a bright-line test to identify the running of the statutes of limitation. The defense lawyers asked Judge David Campbell to adopt a strict procedure for this analysis similar to the procedure used in the Mirena IUD MDL. (Yes, there is an MDL for women injured by Mirena IUDs made by Bayer Pharmaceuticals.) The Mirena procedure was determined in the case titled Truitt v. Bayer.

Continue reading →

Published on:

IVC Filter Which Has Migrated to the Heart

In this post we look at the history of C.R. Bard’s problematic IVC filters, which sadly have caused many injuries and several deaths. In May 2015 a multidistrict litigation site (MDL) was selected for claims across the country arising from injuries relating to C.R. Bard’s “G2 Series” and “Recovery” IVC filters. But before we get to the Bard MDL, however, we have to ask, “well, how did we get here?”

Bard Recovery IVC Filter

In 2002 C.R. Bard received approval from the FDA to market the Recovery IVC filter. The Recovery received approval for marketing under the dreaded 510(k) approval process, which I have written about often. Soon after the release of the Recovery filter, reports of injuries and deaths began to occur. The primary issues were that the Recovery filter moved (doctors call it “migration”) and broke apart much more often than other IVC filters on the market. After many of these alarming results, C.R. Bard arranged for a study to be performed on the Recovery filter, and this study, published in December 2004, concluded that the Recovery filter created a significantly higher risk of injury and death in patients compared to other IVC filters available to physicians and patients. The report qualified its findings by noting that given the “flaws in the data” (whatever that is) it cannot say conclusively that the Recovery filter presents an “excess risk”; the report nevertheless concluded that further investigation is “urgently warranted.”

Despite this dire warning, C.R. Bard continued to sell the Recovery filter. It finally discontinued the Recovery in 2005.  But this action was too late: as many as 20,000 people still have the Recovery IVC filter implanted in their bodies to this day.

Bard G2 and G2 Express IVC Filters

In 2005 C. R. Bard introduced the G2 IVC filter. That same year C.R. Bard circulated an internal memo in December 2005 expressing concerns with the safety and functionality of the G2 filter. The Bard Memorandum noted that the G2, much like the Recovery filter, had problems with perforation, tilting, and moving. Despite this information, C.R. Bard kept selling the G2 filter. In 2008, as part of the G2 Series, Bard introduced the G2 Express, which has also been found to move, tilt, migrate, and break apart.

Continue reading →