A Review of Professional Liability in IR: Sweeping the Mines.

Medical professional liability (MPL) is becoming a substantial issue in interventional radiology (IR), with both impact on health care costs and negative psychological effects on physicians. MPL presents special challenges within IR because of the field's complex and innovative therapies that are provided to a diverse group of patients and complicated by the off-label use of devices and drugs that is pervasive in the field. This review discusses the principles and practices to avoid and manage MPLs that are specific to the field of IR.

Outcomes of bellwether cases related to inferior vena cava filters in multidistrict litigations.

OBJECTIVE: In the present study, we identified and reviewed the outcomes of bellwether cases related to inferior vena cava (IVC) filter multidistrict litigations (MDLs). METHODS: The legal research database, LexisNexis (New York, NY), was used to identify all cases related to IVC filters. Cases unrelated to the MDLs were excluded. Court documents recording the proceedings for bellwether cases sent to jury trials were retrieved from the LexisNexis subsidiary, Law360. Data on plaintiffs, filter models, reported complications, filed claims, decision-making body, verdicts, and rewards were reviewed. RESULTS: A total of 678 cases pertaining to IVC filters were found in the database, of which 12 were identified as bellwether cases for MDL. Of the 12, 2 (16.7%) were initially ruled in favor of the plaintiffs in jury trials, although the judgment for 1 of these was later vacated by a judge. The remaining 10 (83.3%) had been decided in favor of the manufacturers by judges and juries. CONCLUSIONS: Verdicts in all bench trials were in favor of manufacturers, suggesting that judges perceived the presented complications by patients to be within the normal realm of the expected risk of IVC filter use. The findings from the present study have emphasized the treating physicians' legal responsibility to adequately warn patients of all the associated risks with IVC filters. The findings have also indicated that physicians can still be found liable in product liability cases directed at manufacturers. Physicians should continue to actively monitor patients to optimize the IVC retrieval windows.

Inferior Vena Cava Filter Litigation Review: An Analysis of Medicolegal Cases Pertaining to Inferior Vena Cava Filters.

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.