AngioDynamics Seeks to Have Many Chemo Port Lawsuits Dismissed, Arguing Lawsuits Were Filed Too Long After Implant Failed

Nearly half of the AngioDynamics port catheter lawsuits should be time-barred by state statute of limitation laws, the manufacturer claims.

In response to a rising number of Angiodynamics chemo port lawsuits being filed over complications linked to alleged design defects with several of the company’s totally implantable veneous access devices (TIVAD), including the SmartPort, Vortx, Xcela, Vaxcel and other port catheters, the manufacturer indicates that it plans to file a motion to dismiss about half the litigation before the claims can be heard by a jury.

Angiodynamics faces at least 125 product liability lawsuits brought in federal courts nationwide over its line of chemotherapy port catheters, which are often implanted to provide easy access to administer medications and other fluids, involving a port component that connects to a catheter that delivers these substances directly into the patient’s bloodstream.

Each of the lawsuits raise similar allegations, claiming that patients experienced devastating injuries due to design defects that cause users to face a high risk of developing infections, as well as problems where the port catheter migrates out of place or fractures inside patients’ bodies.

Given similar questions of fact and law raised in the growing number of complaints, the U.S. Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation (JPML) recently ordered all federal AngioDynamics port catheter lawsuits to be centralized in the Southern District of California under U.S. District Judge Jinsook Ohta, for coordinated pretrial proceedings as part of a multidistrict litigation (MDL).

Over the coming months and years, the size and scope of the litigation is expected to continue to increase in size, as individuals discover that port catheter complications they experienced in recent years may be linked to design defects with the products. However, early in the litigation, Angiodynamics is seeking to dismiss many of the claims, arguing that they were brought outside of the state-specific statute of limitations based on where the plaintiff received the port implant.

As part of the coordinated management of the growing litigation, it is expected that Judge Ohta will put a bellwether trial plan in place, where the parties select a small group of representative claims to prepare for early test trials, to help gauge how juries are likely to respond to evidence and testimony to be presented throughout the litigation.

However, before the litigation can reach that stage, AngioDynamics filed a notice (PDF) on February 20, indicating that it plans to file a motion to dismiss at least 58 of the pending claims.

The manufacturer argues that nearly half of the Angiodynamics chemo port lawsuits were filed after statute of limitation laws in the plaintiffs’ states had passed, indicating some plaintiffs waited 10 to 22 years to file a complaint about their injuries.

Although the plaintiffs maintain that their statute of limitations did not begin running until recently, under state discovery rule exceptions to the statute of limitations, the manufacturer indicates it will ask Judge Ohta to not only dismiss these 58 claims, but also any additional lawsuits filed in the future that involve claims where the jury occurred outside of the state’s statute of limitations, which give plaintiffs a deadline to file a civil complaint based on when they knew or reasonably should have known that a cause of action existed.

“To date, 125 actions have been transferred to or filed directly into this MDL. Of those 125 actions, 58 of them, filed by Plaintiffs from 19 states, are facially time-barred,” the motion states. “This is over 46% of this MDL’s current inventory and it signals a growing problem of stale claims that will burden the efficient progress of the MDL.”

While the motion to dismiss has not yet been filed, plaintiffs are expected to argue that they were prevented from discovering they had a cause of action since AngioDynamics fraudulently concealed problems with the catheters. However, AngioDynamics has asked Judge Ohta to throw out the fraudulent concealment claims.

If Judge Ohta agrees to the motion, it would still leave dozens of AngioDynamics chemo port lawsuits available to be chosen for early bellwether trials.

While the outcome of any future bellwether trials against AngioDynamics will not be binding on other claims in the litigation, they may be instrumental in helping the parties reach port catheter settlement agreements to resolve large numbers of claims in the future. Otherwise, Judge Ohta may begin remanding each individual lawsuit back to the U.S. District Court where it originally could have been brought for future trial dates.