Phila. Jury Awards $33M in City's First IVC Filter Trial
The trial, which was overseen by Philadelphia Judge Michael Erdos, was the first case to come before a Philadelphia jury from the litigation focused on inferior vena cava, or IVC, filters.
October 28, 2019 at 06:41 PM
4 minute read
A Philadelphia jury has awarded more than $33 million to a woman who was injured as a result of a defectively designed blood filter.
The jury in the case, captioned Reed-Brown v. Rex Medical, awarded plaintiff Tracy Reed-Brown $1,045,764 million in future medical expenses and $2,322,650 million in future pain and suffering. The jury also found that defendant Rex Medical's conduct merited a punitive damages award, and, following an abbreviated argument session, awarded an additional $30,315,726 in punitive damages.
The trial, which was overseen by Philadelphia Court of Common Pleas Judge Michael Erdos, was the first case to come before a Philadelphia jury from the litigation focused on inferior vena cava, or IVC, filters.
According to the consolidated docket in Philadelphia, more than 760 lawsuits are pending in the court's vena cava mass tort program. That is in addition to the more than 15,000 filter cases pending in federal courts.
Following the award, David Matthews of the Houston-based firm Matthews & Associates, who, along with Rosemary Pinto of the Philadelphia-based firm Feldman & Pinto and Timothy Goss of Freeze Goss in Dallas, represented Reed-Brown, said the award showed the jury found there to be a "system failure."
"They really understood the facts and they really understood what happened in this case," he said.
Lewis Brisbois Bisgaard & Smith attorneys Megan Grossman and Walter "Pete" Swayze III led the trial team for the defendant. Swayze declined to immediately comment without speaking with Rex Medical first. Rex Medical also did not immediately respond to a message seeking comment.
The litigation focuses on allegations 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.
Reed-Brown focuses on the "Option Retrievable" filter, which, according to Reed-Brown's complaint, was manufactured by Rex Medical and distributed by Argon Medical Devices. In her lawsuit, Reed-Brown, a Georgia resident, alleged she was implanted with the device in December 2016 in Georgia, but the device later perforated through the wall of her vena cava, causing severe pain and complications, including fear and anxiety that the device may fracture, which could be fatal.
The complaint said the defendants failed to conduct sufficient clinical testing, and knew or should have known that there was a high rate of embedments, fracture and migrations, but failed to warn. The complaint raised negligence, strict liability, design defect, manufacturing defect, breach of warranty and negligent misrepresentation claims.
The verdict is a decisive win for what has so far been a litigation with mixed results.
The related federal litigation focuses on Cook Medical, which is based in Bloomington, Indiana, and New Jersey company Bard Medical. As of Sept. 16, federal records showed more than 7,000 cases were pending against Cook in Indiana federal court, and more than 8,600 were pending against Bard in Arizona federal court.
Cook won the first IVC filter trial in 2017, but it lost a $1.2 million verdict in Texas state court in May 2018. Cook was also hit with a $3 million verdict in February. In March of last year, plaintiffs won a $3.6 million verdict against Bard. That verdict included a $2 million punitive damages award against Bard. The company, however, followed up in June 2018 with a defense win.
Following the verdict Monday, Goss said the verdict should have implications for the other IVC filter cases pending.
"The jury got it and hopefully this will go towards getting people relief from all of these filters," he said.
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2024 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View All'Grave Matter of Serious Consequences': Why a Missouri Judge Sanctioned a Top Kirkland & Ellis Attorney
10 minute readMorgan Lewis Snatches Up Former Orrick Partner in Boston
Life Sciences M&A Set to Boom, Litigation to Remain Steady Under New Trump Admin
5 minute readFrom M&A to Music Fest, Ballard Spahr Attorney Hosts Week-Long Jam Session With Help of Clients
5 minute readTrending Stories
- 1How to Support Law Firm Profitability: Train Partners Up
- 2Elon Musk Names Microsoft, Calif. AG to Amended OpenAI Suit
- 3Trump’s Plan to Purge Democracy
- 4Baltimore City Govt., After Winning Opioid Jury Trial, Preparing to Demand an Additional $11B for Abatement Costs
- 5X Joins Legal Attack on California's New Deepfakes Law
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250