A Tennessee woman is the latest plaintiff to file an IVC filter injury lawsuit against Bard for complications and injury related to her Bard implant.

On Feb. 2, plaintiff Paula J. filed her IVC filter injury lawsuit against C.R. Bard Inc and Bard Peripheral Vascular Inc. as a part of a multidistrict litigation against Bard for similar complaints.

Inferior vena cava (IVC) filters are small devices placed in the vena cava that can stop blood clots from reaching the lungs and causing pulmonary embolisms. The small, wiry device filters blood moving from the lower body to the heart and catches clots heading upward towards the heart.

The device is placed in the IVC through a small incision in the neck or groin. IVC filters are often used in patients with excessive clotting or patients who are unable to take a blood thinner.

Bard has a product line of non-permanent, or “retrievable,” IVC filters that are subject of this litigation. The lawsuit alleges that Bard marketed this product line to patients at temporary risk for clotting and highlighted the ability to remove the IVC filter after the risk of clotting had passed. Bard received FDA approval in 2003 and their first product, the Recovery filter, became the first retrievable IVC filter to receive FDA clearance.

The lawsuit argues that clearance was obtained despite lack of adequate evidence of safety and efficiency. The IVC filter injury lawsuit references a study published by Annals of Surgery which allegedly shows “almost twice the percentage of patients with IVC filters in the study died compared to those that had not received them.”

Allegedly, post-market analysis showed that patients’ filters fractured, migrated, or perforated the vena cava. This allegedly caused clotting, hemorrhage, severe and persistent pain, and death.

The lawsuit alleges that Bard knew their filters were failing and, instead of recalling their device, purposefully concealed the risk of their filters from consumers and physicians. The complaint argues that Bard purposefully concealed the risks associated with their filters in order to make a profit and avoid accountability.

“Bard’s conduct was willful, outrageous, immoral, unethical, oppressive, unscrupulous, unconscionable, and substantially injurious to Plaintiffs and offends the public conscience,” argues the lawsuit.

According to the lawsuit, Bard knew their original filters were failing in 2004 with the Recovery filter and yet continued to develop and design new filters with the same defects through 2013 with the Denali filter. “At all times material hereto from the design phase, testing, and manufacture of the Recovery filter through the Denali filter, Bard lacked a thorough understanding dynamics of caval anatomy that impacted testing methods,” states the lawsuit.

“Bard’s conduct is reprehensible, evidencing an evil hand guided by an evil mind and was undertaken for pecuniary gain in reckless and conscious disregard for the substantial risk of death and physical injury to consumers, including Plaintiffs and their decedents,” the lawsuit states.

Paula seeks a trial by jury for liability, negligence, breach of warranty, misrepresentation, concealment, and fraud. She also seeks damages, restitution, attorney fees, and court costs.

The IVC Filter Injury Lawsuit is Case No. 2:18-cv-00386-DGC and is part of the IVC Filter MDL, In re: Bard IVC Filters Products Liability Litigation, Case No. 2:15-md-02641-DGC, in the U.S. District Court for the District of Arizona.