Cook Medical is facing a huge legal battle over allegations it defectively designed their inferior vena cava (IVC) filters.

More than 650 federal lawsuits are now pending in a multidistrict litigation (MDL) against the device manufacturing giant.

Now, the U.S. District Judge overseeing all pretrial processes for the Cook IVC filter lawsuits has announced that three claims have been selected for bellwether trials, and one particular lawsuit is slated to be the first of these IVC filter bellwether cases to go to trial in 2017.

What is a Bellwether Case?

In the MDL process, many individual lawsuits are consolidated into one court. Unlike a class action, the outcomes of “bellwether” trials are not binding for other lawsuits in the MDL.

When multiple lawsuits are centralized for pretrial proceedings before a single judge in an MDL, it is not uncommon to hold a series of bellwether trials.

These trials involve claims from the MDL which are similar to a greater number of lawsuits, and they allow attorneys to gain an understanding of potential jury responses to common evidence and testimony.

Verdicts in bellwether trials are not binding for other claims in an MDL, but they sometimes lead to settlements for additional cases for which attorneys do not wish to pursue jury trials.

Cook IVC Filter Bellwether Cases

About 650 lawsuits against C.R. Bard have been centralized in the District of Indiana under Judge Richard L. Young. The lawsuits against Cook stem from allegations that the IVC filters that they manufactured are defective and dangerous.

The plaintiffs in these IVC filter lawsuits are arguing that the filters have caused serious and sometimes life-threatening side effects about which they were not adequately warned.

Dangers of the devices that have been reported by the FDA have included filter fracture, embolization, perforation and filter migration. The risks associated with the devices are said to increase the longer the filters stay in the body.

Plaintiffs are also arguing that Cook was aware of the devices’ faulty design and the dangers they pose. The are also arguing Cook continued to push the products to market regardless.

In July, Judge Young issued an order selecting three IVC filter bellwether cases for trial starting in Spring 2017. He also identified the specific type of Cook IVC filter that caused the plaintiffs’ injuries. The IVC filter bellwether cases are

• Case No. 1:14-cv-6018 (Cook Celect device)
• Case No. 1:14-cv-1875 (Günther Tulip device)
• Case No. 1:14-cv-6016 (Cook Celect device)

The first of these three IVC filter bellwether cases will involve Plaintiff Elizabeth H., a woman from Florida who was implanted with a Cook Celect IVC filter in Nov. 2010.

The Cook Celect model is a retrievable IVC filter that the FDA recommends removing within 29 to 54 days after implantation. If the filter remains longer than recommended, the patient is at increased risk for the filter to fracture, migrate, perforate, inflict organ damage or even lead to death.

Elizabeth’s doctors attempted to remove the filter in March of 2011, but the attempt failed.

During the three years that followed, Elizabeth developed severe gastrointestinal symptoms such as diarrhea, inflammation, fatigue and vomiting. It was during a colonoscopy that doctors discovered that the filter had migrated and embedded in her intestines.

At another hospital, Elizabeth underwent emergency surgery to remove the filter and was left with permanent narrowing at the site of excision.

In a study performed last year, researchers discovered that 43% of Celect filters perforated the vena cava within two months after implantation.

IVC Filter Lawsuits

As preparation is underway for these three IVC filter bellwether cases, there is a chance that some settlements may be proposed or agreed upon for one or more cases in the Cook IVC filter MDL.

If you or someone you love has suffered severe or even fatal injuries after implantation with a potentially defective IVC filter, contact an experienced IVC filter attorney to learn more about your potential right to compensation in a free legal consultation.