C.R. Bard (NYSE:BCR) held on to victory this week in a product liability lawsuit brought over its G2 inferior vena cava filter when a federal appeals court affirmed a lower court’s ruling to exclude an expert witness for the plaintiffs.
Anthony and Johnita Payne sued Bard after the G2 filter used to treat his recurrent bilateral lower-extremity deep-vein thrombosis malfunctioned, perforating his IVC, according to court documents. Payne later suffered a pulmonary embolism, a condition the G2 device is designed to prevent. The scans that revealed the embolism also showed that the IVC filter had fractured and that 1 stud was detached, but surgeons were unable to remove the device, leaving Payne with chest pain and shortness of breath, the court filings show.
The Paynes sought expert testimony from expert witness Fredrick Hetzel, seeking to establish that Anthony Payne’s G2 filter was defective and inadequately labeled as to its risks. Judge Roy Dalton Jr. of the U.S. District Court for Middle Florida ruled that Hetzel was "unqualified to testify competently about matters in the case and that Dr. Hetzel’s methodologies were not sufficiently reliable or helpful," according to the documents.
The Paynes appealed, arguing that Hetzel is qualified to testify based on his experience testing medical devices, including 1 instance involving an IVC filter.
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 11th Circuit ruled that the Paynes "failed to satisfy their burden of proof; the district court committed no manifest error in concluding that Dr. Hetzel was unqualified to testify."
"First, because Dr. Hetzel lacks medical training or experience, he is unqualified to testify as an expert on medical issues. Plaintiffs have also failed to show how Dr. Hetzel’s limited experience working with a ‘conceptual’ IVC filter over 20 years ago led to, or is pertinent to, the opinions he has reached in this case about the design, testing, or labeling of the G2 Filter. Dr. Hetzel also lacks the necessary training and experience to testify as an expert in metallurgy," the court ruled in a per curiam decision.
The 11th Circuit panel also denied the Paynes’ bid to re-open the deadline for introducing a replacement witness and granted Bard’s motion for summary judgment, dismissing the case.