Searching over 5,500,000 cases.

Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

In re Bard IVC Filters Products Liability Litigation

United States District Court, D. Arizona

January 22, 2018

IN RE Bard IVC Filters Products Liability Litigation,



         This multidistrict litigation (“MDL”) involves thousands of personal injury cases related to inferior vena cava (“IVC”) filters manufactured and marketed by Defendants C. R. Bard, Inc. and Bard Peripheral Vascular, Inc. (collectively, “Bard”). Bard has filed a motion to exclude the opinions of Dr. Derek Muehrcke. Doc. 7304. The motion is fully briefed, and the Court heard arguments on January 19, 2018. The Court will grant the motion in part.

         I. Background.

         The IVC is a large vein that returns blood to the heart from the lower body. IVC filters are small metal devices implanted in the IVC to catch blood clots before they reach the heart and lungs. This MDL involves seven different versions of Bard IVC filters - the Recovery, G2, G2 Express, G2X, Eclipse, Meridian, and Denali.

         Each Plaintiff in this MDL was implanted with a Bard IVC filter and claims it is defective and has caused serious injury or death. Plaintiffs allege that Bard filters tilt, perforate the IVC, or fracture and migrate to neighboring organs. Plaintiffs claim that Bard filters are more dangerous than other IVC filters, and that Bard failed to warn about the higher risks. Plaintiffs assert a host of state law claims, including manufacturing and design defects, failure to warn, breach of warranty, and consumer fraud and unfair trade practices. Doc. 303-1. Bard disputes Plaintiffs' allegations, contending that overall complication rates for Bard filters are comparable to those of other IVC filters and that the medical community is aware of the risks associated with IVC filters.

         The parties intend to use various expert witnesses at trial, including medical professionals. Plaintiffs have identified Dr. Muehrcke, a cardiothoracic surgeon, as an expert witness on various issues in each of the five cases selected for bellwether trials. He has prepared case-specific reports that share certain opinions in common. Doc. 7307. Defendants ask the Court to exclude seven categories of opinions: (1) Bard filters have design defects; (2) adoption of opinions of other experts; (3) reasonable expectations of physicians regarding filter performance; (4) Bard filters have an “unacceptable” risk of caudal migration; (5) Bard acted unethically in selling its filters; (6) Bard's state of mind, motive, and intent; and (7) the failure of Plaintiff Lisa Hyde's filter resulted in an increased risk for arrhythmias and sudden death, and the need for an implantable defibrillator. Doc. 7304 at 2.[1] The Court will address each category.[2]

         II. Legal Standard.

         Under Rule 702, a qualified expert may testify on the basis of “scientific, technical, or other specialized knowledge” if it “will assist the trier of fact to understand the evidence, ” provided the testimony rests on “sufficient facts or data” and “reliable principles and methods, ” and “the witness has reliably applied the principles and methods to the facts of the case.” Fed.R.Evid. 702(a)-(d). An expert may be qualified to testify based on his or her “knowledge, skill, experience, training, or education.” Id.

         The proponent of expert testimony has the ultimate burden of showing that the expert is qualified and the proposed testimony is admissible under Rule 702. See Lust v. Merrell Dow Pharm., Inc., 89 F.3d 594, 598 (9th Cir. 1996). The trial court acts as a gatekeeper to assure that expert testimony “both rests on a reliable foundation and is relevant to the task at hand.” Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharm., Inc., 509 U.S. 579, 597 (1993). Rule 702's requirements, and the court's gatekeeping role, apply to all expert testimony, not only to scientific testimony. Kumho Tire Co. v. Carmichael, 526 U.S. 137, 147 (1999).

         III. Discussion.

         A. Design Defects.

         Dr. Muehrcke is a cardiothoracic surgeon who received his specialty training at Harvard Medical School and Massachusetts General Hospital. Doc. 7307 at 2. He serves as Chief of Cardiothoracic Surgery at Flagler Hospital in St. Augustine, Florida, and is part of a private medical group that performs heart surgeries at seven area hospitals. Id. at 3. He implants or removes nearly 50 IVC filters per year, and has more than 20 years' experience treating patients with IVC filters. Id. at 2-3.

         Defendants argue that Dr. Muehrcke is not qualified to offer design related opinions because he has never designed or tested an IVC filter and has no background in engineering, metallurgy, or materials science. Doc. 7304 at 3. Defendants ask the Court to exclude this design opinion:

Due to the filters [sic] inadequate design, Ms. Booker's filter tilted, became embedded in the vena cava, punctured through the vena cava and surrounding organs and structures, multiple strut fractures occurred, and filter fragments embolized to the heart. Specifically, the device's inadequate migration resistance, and lack of strength and stability, caused by its weak anchoring hooks and lack of radial force and inadequate leg span to accommodate vessel distention were substantial factors in causing this device to migrate in a caudal direction, tilt, perforate the vena cava, and fracture. In reaching this opinion, I reviewed Ms. Booker's medical records and radiology, and performed a differential diagnosis, and there is no other reasonable cause for the failures of the filter.

Doc. 7307 at 10. Dr. Muehrcke offers similar opinions in other bellwether cases. See Docs. 7307-1 at 9 (inadequate migration resistance and lack of strength and stability caused Plaintiff Hyde's G2 filter to migrate, tilt, perforate the IVC, and fracture); 7307-2 at 9 (lack of strength and stability caused Plaintiff Jones's Eclipse filter to fracture); 7307-3 at 9 (inadequate migration resistance and ...

Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.