The discovery process in the Bard IVC filter MDL may be ready to determine which lawsuits may go to trial.

These IVC filter lawsuits allege that the complications caused by the device have caused severe injuries to patients, with the lawsuits in the Bard IVC filter MDL potentially going to trial by 2017.

A recently filed joint report regarding the most recently planned case management conference revealed that the parties proposed two separate discovery processes for the multidistrict litigation (MDL).

The parties already have Bard IVC filter lawsuits ready to be advanced in the litigation process and are calling for the first discovery process to be finished by July 1. At this point in time, the parties will exchange expert reports and complete expert discovery by Nov. 4.

Afterward, the pretrial motions and challenges to the expert testimony will be conducted, with the proposed schedule allowing older IVC filter lawsuits to be ready by early 2017.

For the remaining Bard IVC filter lawsuits, along with future lawsuits, the parties proposed that a second round of discovery be done to move the additional cases along.

A second discovery process was proposed due to the different needs of those IVC filter lawsuits, which would conclude on Oct. 28, and the common-issue expert discovery would be completed on May 19, 2017.

The parties have indicated that they have already had preliminary discussions regarding the selection of the bellwether trials, in which a small number of IVC filter lawsuits will be selected to go to trial.

According to the joint report, the parties plan to submit an update regarding the bellwether process on March 1, 2016.

Allegations of IVC Filter Complications

Currently, there are approximately 100 product liability lawsuits pending in the federal court system alleging severe IVC filter complications. According to the IVC filter lawsuits, the devices were poorly designed and had a dangerous tendency of breaking apart inside patients.

This introduced a high risk of device failure, with claims indicating that the IVC filters had broken apart, moved out of position, or punctured the vein. In extreme cases, small metal fragments of the device would then migrate to the patients’ heart or lungs.

Each of these Bard IVC filter lawsuits revolves around retrievable models, which were meant to be later removed from the patients. Originally IVC filters were designed to be permanently placed in patients to prevent pulmonary embolism, but retrievable models were recently released.

However, these filters have been alleged to be of poorer quality, and are recommended to be removed soon after the blood clots are resolved. IVC filters would ideally trap blood clots forming in the legs or pelvic, and prevent it from traveling up to the heart or lungs.

After the blood clot is resolved, the retrievable IVC filter should be removed up to 54 days after the blood clot risk is resolved. The FDA indicates that a number of IVC filter complications can occur if the devices stay in the vein, including the side effects mentioned in these lawsuits.

Since August 2015, IVC filter lawsuits have been filed throughout the federal court system under U.S. District Judge David G. Campbell in the District of Arizona as part of a multidistrict litigation. As IVC filter lawyers continue to process incoming claims, legal experts ultimately expect several thousand complaints to be centralized under Judge Campbell.