In the past few weeks, more information has come to the public’s attention as C.R. Bard IVC filters were featured in a two-part NBC Nightly News segment. The year-long investigation raises more serious questions about why medical device manufacturer C.R. Bard continued to sell and market its inferior vena cava (IVC) filters even after the company became aware that its filters were failing and causing death and other serious injuries at significantly high rates. The investigation alone revealed 27 deaths and more than 300 injuries related to the Bard Recovery model IVC filter. The people and injuries featured in this story are real. Their lives were affected in real ways, the same as many others might have been as well. If you are one of those people, please contact our office immediately to see how we might be able to help – (800) 269-3050.
Medical Device to Stop Blood Clots Associated With 27 Fatalities
Did Manufacturer of Medical Device Linked to 27 Deaths Ignore Safety Concerns?
Posted by Kim Truongle
March 1, 2013 – The jury that awarded a transvaginal mesh Plaintiff a $3.35 million verdict this week in New Jersey tacked on an additional $7.76 million award for punitive damages against the manufacturer Defendants.
What are punitive damages?
Punitive damages are damages awarded to serve two purposes. One, punitive damages are intended to punish the Defendants for wrongdoing and the wanton disregard of the Plaintiff’s rights. Two, punitive damages are exemplary damages, or damages meant to set an example and deter similar wrongdoing by others.
Does that mean my case will gross millions of dollars?
No. The amount of this verdict has NO bearing on the value of individual cases. Furthermore, although the Judge overseeing the New Jersey trial is a well-respected and highly regarded Judge, the likelihood of appeal is still high.
What does this punitive damages verdict mean for my individual case?
The real impact this verdict has on the individual cases is that it is a weight that can push these particular Defendants to come to the negotiating table. This does not mean they will settle the cases immediately, but it is a force that may push them towards negotiations sooner than later.
For additional questions on your TVM case, please call us at (800) 269-3050.
Posted by Kim Truongle
February 27, 2013 – Yesterday, a jury in New Jersey found in favor of a mesh implant Plaintiff, awarding her a $3.35 million verdict. What does this mean for your mesh implant case?
This does NOT mean that all mesh cases will gross millions, nor that they will resolve for anywhere near that much. It is important to remember that trials involve specific facts; some of them may be applicable to you, and some may not. Also keep in mind that despite this verdict, the odds of this Plaintiff receiving her funds any time soon are quite low. The likelihood that this case will be appealed by the Defendants to therefore keep the case tangled in further litigation is high. Furthermore, case expenses are usually borne by the client, meaning that the costs of bringing this Plaintiff’s case to trial will most likely come out of the funds she ultimately receives – trying a case against Johnson & Johnson or any pharmaceutical company is not cheap.
The jury in the New Jersey case unanimously found that there was no design defect and instead put the blame on the Defendants for other failures. Defective design is one key cause of action in these cases, so this shows that juries may not always side with the Plaintiffs regarding every issue alleged. In other words, despite some seemingly large dollar verdicts, in no way are mesh cases “slam dunk cases”.
This does NOT mean the cases are close to resolution or settlement. There is still more work to do before we can sit across the table from Defendants and negotiate a settlement that is fair. Valuation of a case involves both personal and legal facts, as we take into account what each client has and will go through, as well as the facts that help shape the legal framework. The latter may involve things like additional development of the science, finding out more about what the companies did or should have done, etc.
We are optimistic about the verdict out of New Jersey, but there is still a road ahead. Sometimes, that road will run smoothly, but there may also be a few bumps we will have to navigate around as we move ahead. As a national pharmaceutical litigation firm, we use our experience to stay the course towards a resolution that is fair for our clients. If you have any questions, please phone our office at (800) 269-3050.
By Cindy Nations
February 22, 2013 – A Class I recall has been issued by DePuy Orthopaedics. This time the product involved is a device used in conjunction with the LPS System, an end-stage revision knee product. Reportedly, the defectively-designed device can malfunction, which may lead to possible loss of function, loss of limb, soft tissue damage, infection, or even death. This is not the first time DePuy has been in hot water. The Johnson & Johnson-owned company is defending lawsuits around the country for their defective hip implants, the ASR and PINNACLE models. For more information about these and other defective drugs and devices, contact The Nations Law Firm for a free case evaluation.