IVC Filter Companies Want $33M Verdict Tossed as Product of 'Gamesmanship'
'This punitive damages award is not based on the harms actually suffered by plaintiff, nor are they proportionate to the actions taken by Rex to bring the [filter] to the market,' the motion said.
November 12, 2019 at 04:13 PM
4 minute read
Two medical device companies that were hit last month with a $33 million verdict over their allegedly defective blood filter devices are seeking to have the award overturned.
Rex Medical and Argon Medical Devices have filed a post-trial motion in the case, captioned Reed-Brown v. Rex Medical, in which a jury handed up the multimillion-dollar award Oct. 28. The motion argues that Philadelphia Court of Common Pleas Judge Michael Erdos, who oversaw the nearly three-week trial, among other things, allowed the jury to hear improper evidence.
The 55-page post-trial motion argued that the jury's more than $30 million punitive damages award was excessive and the result of "gamesmanship."
Specifically, the defendants said that the punitive award, which was nine times the compensatory verdict, showed that the jury was trying to impose "the highest punitive damages award against Rex while staying within a 'single digit' multiplier range to attempt to avoid remittitur under a due process argument."
The papers were filed last week by Lewis Brisbois Bisgaard & Smith attorneys Walter "Pete" Swayze III and Megan Grossman.
"The actions of the jury here were calculated and precise. This punitive damages award is not based on the harms actually suffered by plaintiff, nor are they proportionate to the actions taken by Rex to bring the [filter] to the market," Swayze said in the motion. "This is gamesmanship and a working of the system and is clearly not in line with the actual evidence of the case. Thus, this court should strike this award altogether."
Reed-Brown 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 790 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.
The litigation focused 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.
In her lawsuit, Tracy Reed-Brown, a Georgia resident, alleged she was implanted with the "Option Retrievable" filter 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. According to Reed-Brown's complaint, the device was manufactured by Rex Medical and distributed by Argon Medical Devices.
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.
David Matthews of the Houston-based firm Matthews & Associates, along with Rosemary Pinto of the Philadelphia-based firm Feldman & Pinto and Timothy Goss of Freese & Goss in Dallas, represented Reed-Brown at trial.
According to the defendants' post-trial motions, the "most compelling" basis for either tossing the verdict entirely or granting a new trial was that there was a "complete lack of evidence to bridge the causal gap between allegedly inadequate warnings and plaintiff's alleged injuries."
"Throughout the entirety of discovery and trial in this case, there was not a single shred of evidence that any of plaintiff's health care providers would have altered their conduct based upon the presence of different or additions warnings or communications," the defendant said.
Neither Swayze, nor Matthews returned a message seeking comment.
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
© 2025 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 AllOzempic Defendants Seek to Shave 'Tacked On' Claims From MDL Complaint
3 minute readPlaintiff Argues Jury's $22M Punitive Damages Finding Undermines J&J's Talc Trial Win
4 minute read'Discordant Dots': Why Phila. Zantac Judge Rejected Bid for His Recusal
3 minute readPittsburgh Jury Tries to Award $22M Against J&J in Talc Case Despite Handing Up Defense Verdict
4 minute readTrending Stories
- 1Exits Leave American Airlines, SiriusXM, Spotify Searching for New Legal Chiefs
- 2Etsy App Infringes on Storage, Retrieval Patents, New Suit Claims
- 3The Secret Prior Art Problem Rears Its Ugly Head
- 4Four Things to Know About Florida’s New Law to Protect Minors Online
- 5US Supreme Court Considers Further Narrowing of Federal Fraud Statutes
Who Got The Work
J. Brugh Lower of Gibbons has entered an appearance for industrial equipment supplier Devco Corporation in a pending trademark infringement lawsuit. The suit, accusing the defendant of selling knock-off Graco products, was filed Dec. 18 in New Jersey District Court by Rivkin Radler on behalf of Graco Inc. and Graco Minnesota. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Zahid N. Quraishi, is 3:24-cv-11294, Graco Inc. et al v. Devco Corporation.
Who Got The Work
Rebecca Maller-Stein and Kent A. Yalowitz of Arnold & Porter Kaye Scholer have entered their appearances for Hanaco Venture Capital and its executives, Lior Prosor and David Frankel, in a pending securities lawsuit. The action, filed on Dec. 24 in New York Southern District Court by Zell, Aron & Co. on behalf of Goldeneye Advisors, accuses the defendants of negligently and fraudulently managing the plaintiff's $1 million investment. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Vernon S. Broderick, is 1:24-cv-09918, Goldeneye Advisors, LLC v. Hanaco Venture Capital, Ltd. et al.
Who Got The Work
Attorneys from A&O Shearman has stepped in as defense counsel for Toronto-Dominion Bank and other defendants in a pending securities class action. The suit, filed Dec. 11 in New York Southern District Court by Bleichmar Fonti & Auld, accuses the defendants of concealing the bank's 'pervasive' deficiencies in regards to its compliance with the Bank Secrecy Act and the quality of its anti-money laundering controls. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Arun Subramanian, is 1:24-cv-09445, Gonzalez v. The Toronto-Dominion Bank et al.
Who Got The Work
Crown Castle International, a Pennsylvania company providing shared communications infrastructure, has turned to Luke D. Wolf of Gordon Rees Scully Mansukhani to fend off a pending breach-of-contract lawsuit. The court action, filed Nov. 25 in Michigan Eastern District Court by Hooper Hathaway PC on behalf of The Town Residences LLC, accuses Crown Castle of failing to transfer approximately $30,000 in utility payments from T-Mobile in breach of a roof-top lease and assignment agreement. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Susan K. Declercq, is 2:24-cv-13131, The Town Residences LLC v. T-Mobile US, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Wilfred P. Coronato and Daniel M. Schwartz of McCarter & English have stepped in as defense counsel to Electrolux Home Products Inc. in a pending product liability lawsuit. The court action, filed Nov. 26 in New York Eastern District Court by Poulos Lopiccolo PC and Nagel Rice LLP on behalf of David Stern, alleges that the defendant's refrigerators’ drawers and shelving repeatedly break and fall apart within months after purchase. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Joan M. Azrack, is 2:24-cv-08204, Stern v. Electrolux Home Products, Inc.
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