California’s discovery rule does not trigger accrual of a cause of action unless the plaintiff has some reason to suspect wrongdoing – “that is, when a plaintiff, through reasonably diligent investigation, discovers only that he has been injured but not that the injury may have a wrongful cause, then the clock has not yet begun to run.”

In this case, the District Court found that any reasonable jury would conclude that Plaintiff was on inquiry notice that a potential defect of the Bard filter in question caused his injury because: (1) the plaintiff saw a TV program in 2015 indicating the filter “may be associated with complications of fracture, migration, tilt and perforation”; and (2) then retained counsel to investigate and discuss with his physicians whether failed attempts to surgically remove the Filter were due to a design defect. Further, the District Court found that Bennett’s medical record suggests that, by 2020 at the latest, he and his doctors were aware that the Filter was causing various medical problems, citing to plaintiff’s treatment for varicose veins in October 2020 and his doctor’s belief in November 2020 that “his symptoms were indicative of possible IVC stenosis” as supporting the conclusion that “Plaintiff suspected, well before March 3, 2021, that the Filter and its potential defects were the cause of his injuries.”

The Court of Appeal reversed. Viewing the facts in a light most favorable to the plaintiff, the Court said, the record supports “the reasonable inference that Bennett could have believed his pre-March 2021 symptoms were the result of potential complications that were not caused by a design defect. In addition to a warning about the potential for movement, migration, tilt, fracture, and perforation, the Filter’s Instructions for Use warned about caval thrombosis, stenosis at the implant site, vessel injury, back or abdominal pain, and thrombophlebitis, among other things.  Thus, a reasonable jury could conclude that the presence of several symptoms prior to March 2021 that Bard had warned were potential complications of using the Filter does not necessarily indicate that the Filter had malfunctioned due to a design defect. Moreover, the district court drew the adverse inference that Bennett was on inquiry notice after viewing a TV program indicating Bard’s IVC Filters may be associated with complications of fracture, migration, tilt, and perforation through the vena cava into adjacent organs. After viewing the program in 2015, Bennett retained counsel to investigate whether there was any evidence that his IVC Filter had malfunctioned and that’s why it could not be removed. After providing his lawyers with his medical records, Bennett was informed his records did not reveal any evidence of malfunction in s courts must draw all reasonable inferences in favor of the non-moving party. Accordingly, it was improper for the district court to infer that after viewing the TV program and contacting a lawyer in 2015, Bennett had inquiry notice that a potential defect of the Filter caused him injury in the form of two failed surgical removal attempts of the device. The district court further inferred that Bennett was on notice of a failure due to a design defect simply because he sought legal advice after viewing a TV program indicating there was a possibility the Filter had failed.”

 

Bennett v. C.R. Bard, No.24-2471, 2025 WL 1132825 (9^th Cir. April 17, 2025).