In a joint report issued on August 10, parties involved in the C.R. Bard IVC Filter litigation involving a plaintiff's case outlined their respective views about the exact model of the Bard filter that was implanted during the surgery.
The pretrial proceedings were carried out considering the product in question was Bard G2 Filter. However, the manufacturer alleges there is no proper evidence that the plaintiff received its G2 Filter during the surgery. The defendants maintain that she was implanted with a Bard Denali filter while the plaintiff argues that the implanting surgeon testified it to be Bard G2. The discussion also comprised whether the case must be tried in separate phases for compensatory and punitive damages. The first phase for deciding whether liability, compensatory damages, and punitive damages must be awarded. And the second phase to decide the amount of the punitive damages, if required.
Another claim, which was scheduled for a November 2018 trial has been postponed to March 2019, considering her health condition, Judge David G. Campbell announced.
The manufacturer and plaintiffs recently agreed on the summarization of Bard’s multidistrict litigation involving 10 cases that have been remanded to the district court. These cases would not be considered as bellwether cases since legal proceedings had already begun before consolidation in August 2015. C.R. Bard faces more than 3,500 lawsuits over IVC filter complications like internal injuries due to device breakage and migration. Multidistrict litigation (MDL No.2641; In Re: Bard IVC Filters Products Liability Litigation) was formed for centralized pretrial proceedings in the United States District Court District of Arizona on August 17, 2015.
