A new product liability IVC filter lawsuit has been filed against C.R. Bard, alleging that the Bard G2 Express IVC filter punctured a New York woman’s critical vein, leaving her at risk of serious injury or even death.

The plaintiff had an IVC filter implanted in her inferior vena cava (IVC) in 2009 in order to reduce her risk of pulmonary embolism and deep vein thrombosis.

In 2014, doctors discovered that her Bard G2 IVC filter had migrated from its original placement and had seriously punctured the vena cava.

The IVC filter lawsuit alleges that the plaintiff’s doctor determined removal of the IVC filter was too risky. Because of this, the plaintiff continues to live with the filter in her body, which poses a continued and constant risk of dangerous or even life-threatening complications.

IVC Filter Background

IVC filters are used to prevent blood clots from traveling to and damaging a patient’s lungs. The IVC filter was first used in 1979, and the practice of IVC implantation has grown considerably more widespread since then. By 2012, doctors had inserted IVC filters into more than 250,000 patients.

The IVC filter is placed inside the inferior vena cava, the largest vein in the human body. The inferior vena cava returns blood back into the heart and then on to the lungs. Blood clots in this vein are extremely dangerous.

Blood clots which travel to the lungs can become a pulmonary embolism (PE), which cuts off blood flow to the lungs. PE causes about 300,000 deaths every year, though they are preventable with the right measures.

Bard IVC Filter Lawsuits

A growing number of patients have filed IVC filter lawsuits over the risk of IVC filter complications. These lawsuits allege severe damage caused by the filter migrating out of place and puncturing the vena cava, or in some cases fracturing into tiny pieces and sending metal shards throughout the heart or lungs.

Various Bard IVC filter products have been linked with reports of serious medical problems. Despite these reports, federal investigators report that Bard failed to submit adverse event reports about IVC filter malfunctions.

On top of this, the company allegedly failed to explain why it believed the problems associated with their product would not reoccur with other individuals who used the same product, also resulting in severe injury or death.

The IVC filter lawsuit claims that Bard knew the design had major problems, including reports of filter fractures and migration, but continued marketing and selling the product anyway.

Recent studies have even questioned the effectiveness of blood clot filters such as Bard’s products, indicating that very few IVC filters can be successfully removed. Up to 8 percent of patients with similar IVC filters suffered a pulmonary embolism, the condition these devices are supposed to prevent.

So many potential plaintiffs have filed complaints against Bard IVC filters in recent months that these cases may be centralized and consolidated before one judge in a multidistrict litigation (MDL).

Injured patients have filed lawsuits against a number of IVC filter makers, citing organ damage due to filter migration and breaks, as well as other complications. If you have suffered complications due to retrievable IVC filters, you may have cause to file a lawsuit.