January 10, 2018 On Monday, November 27, the Supreme Court declined to hear an appeal from a medical device maker.
The appeal sought to remove eight consolidated suits involving more than 100 consumers allegedly harmed by the company’s vascular filters from California state court to federal court. The Supreme Court’s decision leaves intact the 9th Circuit’s ruling that the cases against Cordis Corp. do not qualify as a mass action that can be removed to federal court in accordance with the Class Action Fairness Act (CAFA). This was an upholding of a lower court’s decision that the suits could not be removed to federal court under CAFA’s mass action provision because the plaintiffs did not propose a joint trial of the claims. A three-person panel also said, “The statement negates any notion that the plaintiffs were speaking of a bellwether trial whose results would have preclusive effects in the other cases.” This decision allows each of the vascular filter cases to be decided on its own merits.
While Cordis says that the company continues to stand by the quality of its IVC filters and will defend itself vigorously in court, the plaintiffs who filed the eight suits are seeking damages for injuries allegedly caused by Cordis’ inferior vena cava filters (IVC filters).
What is an IVC Filter?
Implantable IVC filters are small medical devices put into the main vein that returns blood from the lower body to the heart and lungs. This device is designed to catch blood clots that form in the legs before they reach the heart and lungs, preventing blockages of these vital organs. The danger with IVC filters is that they can break apart, allowing pieces from the medical device to puncture a patient’s internal organs or become embedded, requiring surgical intervention.
What does the government say about IVC filters?
In 2010, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) warned doctors of IVC filter design problems that caused them to move around in the body and break apart, causing perforation of vital organs, and even death. The FDA reissued this warning again in 2014, but some manufacturers continued to sell their IVC filters allegedly knowing of the design flaws and the dangers that came with it.
Manufacturer Responsibility
When manufacturers know that a product of theirs is defective and dangerous and is currently in the bodies of Americans across the country, it is the manufacturers’ responsibility to warn the public as soon as possible.
Waters Kraus Paul & Siegel is Here to Help
If you or a loved one have been injured as a result of an IVC filter, you deserve justice. The IVC filter attorneys at Waters Kraus Paul & Siegel, a law firm with experience in litigating medical device cases, will fight to ensure that you receive the justice you deserve. One of the best ways to encourage manufacturers to improve the safety of their products, like IVC filters, is for law firms like Waters Kraus Paul & Siegel to hold manufacturers accountable in the courts for their faulty products and for failing to warn consumers of the deadly danger. Contact our inferior vena cava law firm by email or call us at 800.226.9880 to learn how we can assist you with an IVC filter lawsuit.
