Health Law Daily Wrap Up, PRODUCTS LIABILITY (DEVICES)—9th Cir.: Woman’s arguments fail to prove that her complaint against IVC filter makers was timely filed, (Sep 10, 2026)

By Susan L. Smith, JD, MA

The woman, who was told by her doctor in 2020 that her IVC filter had migrated and perforated her inferior vena cava, failed to convince the court that her 2023 complaint against the manufacturers survived the applicable two-year statute of limitations.

A woman failed in her appeal of a district court’s order granting summary judgment to the manufacturers of an inferior vena cava (IVC) filter that allegedly caused her injuries when the filter migrated from its original position. According to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, the district court properly found that her claims were barred by the applicable two-year statute of limitations. The woman filed her suit in 2023 alleging that the IVC filter had migrated from its original position and that the filter’s tines had perforated her IVC and other organs. The IVC filter was designed, manufactured, and sold by Bard Inc. and Bard Peripheral Vascular, Inc. (collectively, Bard). The woman had notice of the injury by 2020 at the latest when one of her doctors informed her that the filter was mispositioned and that its tines were protruding from her IVC and going into her other organs. She contended, however, that she did not discover Bard had created a defective product until late 2022 when she learned from an IVC litigation commercial that other plaintiffs were suing Bard for the same injury. The circuit court was unpersuaded by the woman’s contrary arguments and concluded that the limitations period commenced in 2020 when she learned of the filter’s misposition. Thus, the court upheld the district court’s order granting summary judgment to the manufacturers (Esperias v. C.R. Bard, Inc., No. 25-2701 (9th Cir. Sept. 4, 2026)).

California’s statute of limitations. The court stated that under California law, the general rule is that the limitations period begins when the plaintiff has a suspicion of wrongdoing, coupled with a knowledge of the harm and its cause. The discovery rule postpones accrual of a cause of action until the plaintiff discovers or has reason to discover the cause of action. If a plaintiff has no reason to suspect wrongdoing, the limitations period will be tolled until she discovers or has reason to discover it. A plaintiff’s failure to recognize that the defendant’s conduct was legally wrong does not toll the limitations period. Further, under California law, plaintiffs are charged with presumptive knowledge of an injury if they have information of circumstances to make them aware of a need for inquiry or if they have the opportunity to obtain knowledge from sources open to their investigation.

Court’s analysis. The court concluded that the limitations period commenced in 2020 at the time the woman was first notified of the precise injury that she alleged in her complaint, thus making her claims untimely. The woman contended that her doctor’s statements in 2020 did not place her on notice of an existing injury or malfunction. The woman argued that under the discovery rule, the limitations period did not begin to run in 2020 because she lacked knowledge of Bard’s wrongdoing. The court stated that it should have been apparent to the woman that Bard’s conduct was the problem. The court explained that a suspicion of wrongful conduct does not mean a suspicion that the defendant has engaged in unlawful conduct; it refers to a suspicion that a person’s injury was caused by someone doing something wrong. The court noted that there was no evidence at that time that the IVC filter’s malposition was caused by anyone other than Bard or that some other innocent cause was at play.

The woman did not allege that the condition of her filter had changed in the meantime. The court stated that if the woman did not have an existing injury in 2020, she remained uninjured now. The woman contended that she lacked notice of injury in 2020 because during a separate appointment, a specialist informed her that her filter’s malfunction was not uncommon and that she was asymptomatic. The court noted that receiving conflicting information from different doctors was simply a reason to inquire further and stated that whether an injury is common has nothing to do with the statute of limitations. Finally, there was no evidence in the summary judgment record that the woman had gastrointestinal injuries that she did not realize were caused by her mispositioned filter.

The case is No. 25-2701.

Judge: Per curiam.

Attorneys: Sarah Demers (Brenes Law Group) for Ana Esperias. Richard B. North, Jr. (Nelson Mullins Riley & Scarborough, LLP) for C.R. Bard, Inc. Dennis Andrew Hom (Nelson Mullins Riley & Scarborough, LLP) for Bard Peripheral Vascular, Inc.

Companies: C.R. Bard, Inc.; Bard Peripheral Vascular, Inc.

Cases: CaseDecisions MDeviceNews PLDeviceNews AlaskaNews ArizonaNews CaliforniaNews HawaiiNews IdahoNews MontanaNews NevadaNews OregonNews WashingtonNews