Bard IVC Filter injury reports will be provided to the C.R. Bard multidistrict litigation (MDL), regarding complications and injuries allegedly caused by their inferior vena cava (IVC) filters.

The medical device maker is set to produce those documents sometime soon in the discovery process, as the litigation movement continues. This development came after a case management order was issued on Jan. 5  by U.S. District Judge David G. Campbell.

This order says that Bard will produce additional and updated IVC filter injury reports that were maintained according to federal regulation. These reports describe the IVC filter complications patients suffered due to the medical device.

According to Judge Campbell’s order notes, a number of the reports include personal identification information regarding a specific named plaintiff with a lawsuit pending in the MDL.

Bard must not omit this information on the reports and also cannot omit reports from a plaintiff whose litigation is pending in state court, or from a “voluntary reporter who is an attorney associated with any of the law firms involved in the MDL”.

Since August 2015, all IVC filter lawsuits filed against C.R. Bard had been consolidated in the federal court under Judge Campbell in the District of Arizona.

Overview of IVC Filter Allegations

As mentioned before, each of the plaintiffs allege several severe IVC filter complications after having the device implanted to prevent blood clot attacks. These patients claim the devices to be unreasonably dangerous and poorly made.

According to these lawsuits, the IVC filters either fractured, broke apart, or migrated out of position after being implanted.

Each of these IVC filter complications had led the patients to suffer serious and life-threatening injuries. Most patients opt for IVC filter removal, after suffering these complications to prevent further damage. The concern of IVC filter complications became prevalent in August 2010, when the FDA first warned the public of the potential problems.

The agency stated that it had received over 900 IVC filter adverse event reports, including cases where the device migrated away from its implant spot with pieces braking off as the devices continued their journeys in the patients’ bodies. Patients have also reportedly died from their IVC filter complications.

IVC filters are cage-like devices implanted into the inferior vena cava, which trap and dissolve blood clots before it reaches the heart or lungs. While some IVC filters are meant to be permanently implanted in patients, the temporary models are meant to be removed after the blood clots are resolved.

The FDA further stated that a number of the IVC filter complications, resulted in long-term use and stressed that the temporary models of these devices are not meant for permanent implantation.

The agency stated that the IVC filter removal procedures should occur between 29 and 54 days after implantation. Furthermore, the FDA encourages physicians to evaluate the risks and benefits of IVC filter removal, on a case-by-case basis.

As the federal C.R. Bard IVC filter litigation progresses, a small group of lawsuits may soon be selected for early trial dates to help parties gauge how juries will respond to the evidence and testimony.

Even though the results of these bellwether trials will not be binding to other cases, they may influence future settlement negotiations.