(Photo: Shutterstock.com)

A state appeals panel has brought back to Pennsylvania several lawsuits against a French medical device-maker over allegedly defective blood filters, reversing a trial judge's determination that Pennsylvania would be an inconvenient forum.

A unanimous three-judge panel of the Pennsylvania Superior Court ruled this week that a Philadelphia trial judge failed to take into account Pennsylvania's interest in the litigation and should not have granted defendants' forum non conveniens motion. The case is one of more than 750 pending in the Philadelphia Court of Common Pleas' mass tort program over allegedly defective inferior vena cava filters.

The Superior Court's decision came in the case McConnell v. B. Braun Medical.

The lower court's ruling had dismissed the case and granted the defendants' request to have the case heard in either plaintiff Beonca McConnell's home state of Texas, or Michigan, where her IVC filter was implanted.

However, according to Superior Court Judge Dan Pellegrini, who wrote the panel's 20-page opinion, the lower court improperly weighed much of the evidence, including affidavits from three defense witnesses stating they lived in Lehigh County, where B. Braun Interventional Systems Inc. has its North American principal place of business.

"The Braun defendants argued that Philadelphia County would be so inconvenient for these employees that the trial should be transferred to Lehigh County," Pellegrini said in a footnote. "The logical conclusion of that claim is that if a trial in Philadelphia County would be highly disruptive to the lives of those potential witnesses, then a trial in Texas or Michigan would be even more so."

On Thursday, the Superior Court applied McConnell to three similar IVC filter lawsuits against the same defendants. Those three other suits had been similarly dismissed, with provisions for the plaintiffs to file their cases in states including New York and Washington.

Although Wednesday's ruling kept the lawsuits in Pennsylvania, it did not address the issue of whether the cases should be transferred to Lehigh County.

Willow Grove, Pennsylvania, attorney Howard Bashman argued the cases for the plaintiffs on appeal. The Law Offices of Ben Martin in Dallas and attorneys from Sheller P.C. in Philadelphia are trial counsel for the plaintiffs.

Bashman noted that, with two defendants based in Pennsylvania, there was no doubt about Pennsylvania's jurisdiction, and that the defendants' warnings about flooding the local court system with these cases were unfounded.

"I think the opinion is certainly making a good point when it notes that Philadelphia Common Pleas does have this mass torts center that exists to handle cases of this nature, and it does a good job of doing so," Bashman said.

Bashman added that, given the proximity of Lehigh County to Philadelphia, it is unlikely the cases will be sent less than 65 miles to the civil courthouse in Allentown.

"There's kind of this radius that you look at and it needs to be greater than the distance between Philadelphia and Lehigh County to be deemed inconvenient enough," Bashman said.

Gregory Sturges of Greenberg Traurig is representing Braun. He did not return a call seeking comment.

McConnell's case is one of hundreds of cases in Pennsylvania—and thousands across the country—alleging that the defendants failed to properly warn about the dangers of the filter devices, which were designed to prevent blood clots, but can allegedly migrate or fracture in patients' bodies, causing perforations. The injuries, according to plaintiffs, put patients at risk for a host of medical problems, including gastrointestinal difficulties, kidney failure and death.

The bulk of the litigation in Pennsylvania focuses on products made by Conshohocken, Pennsylvania-based Rex Medical and Argon Medical Devices, which is based in Plano, Texas.

The litigation in McConnell is over the VenaTech LP Vena Cava Filter. One of the defendants in case, B. Braun France, is a French company, and the company alleged the filters were designed and manufactured in France.

However, according to Pellegrini, the Braun defendants did not argue that the cases needed to be heard in a European court and instead focused on the convenience of Philadelphia. Pellegrini, who was joined by Judges Mary Murray and Eugene Strassburger, found that fact further supported keeping the litigation in Pennsylvania.

"This means that any domestic venue—whether in Pennsylvania, Texas or Michigan—would be equally remote from evidence of a design and manufacturing defect," Pellegrini said. "While the Braun defendants argue that Philadelphia county will be overburdened by numerous other VenaTech filter cases, it appears that litigating all the claims in one place, near their corporate offices, would be much more convenient than litigating those cases in countless jurisdictions simultaneously."