Journal of vascular and interventional radiology : JVIR · 2022
Inferior Vena Cava Filter Litigation Review: An Analysis of Medicolegal Cases Pertaining to Inferior Vena Cava Filters.
СтатьяОбзорНазвание и аннотация: Перевод пока не подготовлен
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Ahmad Yusuf, Funaki Brian, Jilani Sana, Ahmed Osman
Аннотация
PURPOSE: To identify and analyze all medical malpractice and product liability lawsuits pertaining to inferior vena cava (IVC) filters published within a well-recognized legal research database.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: LexisNexis, a legal research database, was used to retrieve cases that mentioned harm from IVC filters, or lack thereof, as the cause for legal action. A total of 672 cases were analyzed for type of case (medical malpractice or product liability), filter model implanted, filter complications, court decisions, and settlement payments if any.
RESULTS: Of 95 analyzed cases, 20 (21.1%) were medical malpractice cases and 75 (78.9%) were product liability cases. C.R. Bard was the manufacturer associated with the most lawsuits (n = 41, 48.8%). The most litigious filters were the G2 filter from C.R. Bard (n = 17, 20.2%) and Greenfield filter from Boston Scientific (n = 17). The most common complications were IVC penetration (n = 26, 29.9%), filter migration (n = 26, 29.9%), filter fracture (n = 23, 26.4%), and tilt (n = 16, 18.4%). The number of product liability cases has increased from accounting for 25.0% (2 of 8) of filter lawsuits between 2000 and 2010 to 83.9% (73 of 87) during 2011-2020. Of the 20 medical malpractice claims, 9 (45%) were filed for failure to place a filter. One physician was found liable for filter-related complications by a state court in 2014.
CONCLUSIONS: The majority of recent IVC filter-related lawsuits are filed against manufacturers on the basis of product liability claims, with the main litigious filters being the G2 and Greenfield filters. Most cases resulted in rulings for physicians or manufacturers. Some were filed against physicians for filter-related complications or for failure to place an IVC filter.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: LexisNexis, a legal research database, was used to retrieve cases that mentioned harm from IVC filters, or lack thereof, as the cause for legal action. A total of 672 cases were analyzed for type of case (medical malpractice or product liability), filter model implanted, filter complications, court decisions, and settlement payments if any.
RESULTS: Of 95 analyzed cases, 20 (21.1%) were medical malpractice cases and 75 (78.9%) were product liability cases. C.R. Bard was the manufacturer associated with the most lawsuits (n = 41, 48.8%). The most litigious filters were the G2 filter from C.R. Bard (n = 17, 20.2%) and Greenfield filter from Boston Scientific (n = 17). The most common complications were IVC penetration (n = 26, 29.9%), filter migration (n = 26, 29.9%), filter fracture (n = 23, 26.4%), and tilt (n = 16, 18.4%). The number of product liability cases has increased from accounting for 25.0% (2 of 8) of filter lawsuits between 2000 and 2010 to 83.9% (73 of 87) during 2011-2020. Of the 20 medical malpractice claims, 9 (45%) were filed for failure to place a filter. One physician was found liable for filter-related complications by a state court in 2014.
CONCLUSIONS: The majority of recent IVC filter-related lawsuits are filed against manufacturers on the basis of product liability claims, with the main litigious filters being the G2 and Greenfield filters. Most cases resulted in rulings for physicians or manufacturers. Some were filed against physicians for filter-related complications or for failure to place an IVC filter.