C.R. Bard is facing a new IVC filter lawsuit from a South Carolina couple alleging complications from the Meridian vena cava filter. This popular inferior vena cava (IVC) filter allegedly caused serious personal injuries to the wife of the couple soon after she had the Meridian vena cava filter implanted.

Plaintiff couple Leeda F. and James F. filed their IVC filter lawsuit after Leeda sustained serious injuries after having the Meridian vena cava filter implanted. Leeda had Meridian vena cava implanted for typical treatment purposes. She opted for the Meridian after reviewing the company’s marketing materials.

Leeda had the device implanted on Aug. 15, 2012 to prevent blood clot attacks. She alleges neither she nor her treatment providers deviated from the manufacturer’s instructions. Even with this diligence, Leeda still allegedly suffered long-term IVC filter complications from the Meridian vena cava filter.

Leeda received no notice or warnings of potential IVC filter complications associated with the Meridian vena cava, at no point before or after getting the medical device implanted. Leeda and James are filing their IVC filter lawsuit in a multidistrict litigation (MDL), to have their claim be processed more quickly through the litigation.

Their Meridian vena cava filter claim joined MDL No. 2641, standing alongside similar IVC filter lawsuits alleging product liability claims against C.R. Bard. Each of these IVC filter lawsuits alleges these medical devices are defective in nature and that C.R. Bard had deliberately downplayed the risks of reversible IVC filter models.

Overview of IVC Filter Complications

IVC filters are small metal cage-like devices, which are directly implanted into the body’s inferior vena cava. The inferior vena cava is the largest vein in the human body, and is a primary component of the body’s circulation process.

IVC filters are often prescribed to patients who are at risk for blood clot attacks but cannot be prescribed anticoagulant treatment. IVC filters work by stopping blood clots formed in the legs or pelvis from traveling to the heart and lungs, ultimately preventing blood clot attacks.

Patients can choose between permanent and retrievable models, with many legal claims alleging the retrievable models were not as well made and had tendencies to break or move out of place.

The FDA issued a public warning regarding IVC filter complications in August 2010, after receiving over 921 injury reports including:

• 328 reports of IVC Filter Migration
• 146 reports of IVC Filter Embolization
• 70 reports of IVC Filter Perforation
• 56 reports of IVC Filter fractures

The FDA issued a later warning in May 2014, after the agency kept receiving reports of IVC filter device failure in conjunction with temporary IVC filters. The agency stated the temporary models should be removed soon after their blood clot risk has resolved, to lower the chances of IVC filter complications.

Often patients have to undergo revision surgery to have the device removed to resolve the device complications. Even though these IVC filter complications can be devastating for patients, manufacturers allegedly failed to warn patients against these possibilities.

Leeda states that she never would have opted for the Meridian vena cava filter if she had known the potential IVC filter complications.

This IVC Filter Lawsuit is Case No. 2:17-cv-01849-DGC, in the U.S. District Court for the District of Arizona