Download PDF
Semin intervent Radiol 2016; 33(02): 132-136
DOI: 10.1055/s-0036-1581086
Thieme Medical Publishers 333 Seventh Avenue, New York, NY 10001, USA.

Providing Context: Medical Device Litigation and Inferior Vena Cava Filters

Eric J. Keller
1   Department of Radiology, Northwestern University, Chicago, Illinois
2   Feinberg School of Medicine, Northwestern University, Chicago, Illinois
3   Center for Bioethics and Medical Humanities, Northwestern University, Chicago, Illinois
,
Robert L. Vogelzang
1   Department of Radiology, Northwestern University, Chicago, Illinois
› Author Affiliations
Further Information

Publication History

Publication Date:
10 May 2016 (online)

Also available at
    Permissions and Reprints

Abstract

Over the last few years, an increasing number of lawsuits have been filed involving inferior vena cava filters. This has prompted the U.S. Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation to centralize these lawsuits into two multidistrict litigations: one for Cook's filters and one for Bard's. Both sets of cases share similar questions of facts, in particular whether these filters' design and manufacturing practices made them unreasonably prone to serious complications. The resolution of these cases will add to a larger legal debate concerning how much legal protection the 1976 Medical Device Amendments should offer firms from tort liability. As a specialty that often relies on medical devices, it is not only important for interventional radiologists to have a general understanding of medical device litigation but also to reflect upon the approaches to informed consent regarding these devices.

Keywords

IVC filter - medical device litigation - informed consent - interventional radiology
 

  • References

  • 1 Tillman v. CR BARD, INC (Dist. Court, MD Florida 2015)
    PubMed
  • 2 Bodine L. Top 5 Mass Tort Cases for Plaintiff Lawyers Right Now. The National Trial Lawyers; 2015
    Google Scholar
  • 3 IN RE COOK MEDICAL, INC., IVC FILTERS MARKETING, 53 1379 (Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation 2014)
    PubMed
  • 4 IN RE BARD IVC FILTERS PRODUCTS LIABILITY LITIGATION (Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation 2015)
    PubMed
  • 5 Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc, 509 579 (Supreme Court 1993)
    PubMed
  • 6 Administration USFaD. Guidance for Industry and FDA Staff: Guidance for Cardiovascular Intravascular Filter 510(k) Submissions. In: Services USDoHaH, ed. 1999
    Google Scholar
  • 7 Medtronic, Inc. v. Lohr, 518 470 (Supreme Court 1996)
    PubMed
  • 8 Costa AE. Negligence Per Se Theories in Pharmaceutical & (and) Medical Device Litigation. Med Law Rev 2005; 57: 51
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 9 Christopher v. Cutter Laboratories, 53 1184 (Court of Appeals, 11th Circuit 1995)
    PubMed
  • 10 Phillips v. ROUX LABS, 286 549 (NY: Appellate Div., 1st Dept. 1955)
    PubMed
  • 11 Berkebile v. Brantly Helicopter Corp, 219 479 (Pa: Superior Court 1971)
    PubMed
  • 12 Riegel v. Medtronic, Inc, 128 999 (Supreme Court 2008)
    PubMed
  • 13 Wyeth v. Levine, 129 1187 (Supreme Court 2009)
    PubMed
  • 14 Curfman GD, Morrissey S, Drazen JM. The Medical Device Safety Act of 2009. N Engl J Med 2009; 360 (15) 1550-1551
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 15 Grady C. Enduring and emerging challenges of informed consent. N Engl J Med 2015; 372 (9) 855-862
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 16 Johnson v. Kokemoor, 545 495 (Wis: Supreme Court 1996)
    PubMed