Articles Tagged with defective product

Published on:

I get calls from people who have been badly injured after surgery. If it’s straightforward surgery to repair a torn ACL, the question is whether the surgeon was negligent; if that turns out to be the case, the caller will have a claim for medical malpractice. But what if the surgeon is implanting a device: an artificial hip or knee or hernia mesh or pacemaker? And then after surgery the patient is worse off than before? If this is the result, the next question is this: was the person the victim of a defective product or medical malpractice? Or both?

So What’s the Difference?

Product liability or medical malpractice?Medical malpractice is the legal term for a doctor who has been negligent. This means that the doctor failed to perform the surgery with an expected degree of care and competence. In a phrase, the doctor simply screwed up the surgery. For a plaintiff to win a medical malpractice claim, he or she must show that the doctor failed to perform his duties with a normal “standard of care” typical of similarly situated doctors. This means that surgeons in small towns will be judged against similar doctors in similar towns, while doctors from major research hospitals in big cities will be judged against their similarly situated peers, and of course will be held to a higher standard. The bottom line is this: medical malpractice is the failure to provide competent medical care, causing the patient unexpected injury.

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 →