A new federal lawsuit alleges that a woman suffered complications from an IVC filter. The plaintiff in this G2 IVC filter lawsuit claims that the inferior vena cava (IVC) filter manufactured by the C.R. Bard Co. was the cause of her injuries.

Plaintiff Edith C. joins countless others with adverse medical events purportedly caused by the G2 IVC filter in a grouping of legal actions known as multidistrict litigation (MDL) No. 2641. Other IVC models created by C.R. Bard are also part of this grouping.

Edith is a citizen and resident of the state of New Jersey. She was implanted with the G2 IVC filter in that state on Feb. 15, 2006.

While her short-form complaint doesn’t elaborate on the specifics of her injuries from the G2 IVC filter, she does bring several counts of action forward from the master MDL complaint against the C.R. Bard Co. and Bard Peripheral Vascular Inc. These counts include strict products liability, manufacturing defect, failure to warn, design defect, negligent design and manufacture, failure to recall/retrofit, failure to warn, negligent misrepresentation, breach of express and implied warranties, fraudulent misrepresentation, concealment, and violations of New Jersey consumer fraud laws.

What is an IVC filter?

Devices like the G2 IVC filter are designed to be placed in the inferior vena cava, the major vein that runs parallel to the aorta and returns deoxygenated blood to the heart. They are prescribed for use with people that are at risk for deep vein thrombosis (DVT) and pulmonary embolism (PE).

Both DVT and PE are related conditions in which a blood clot created in the lower extremities breaks off and travels via the circulatory system to the heart and lung region, potentially creating risk factors for cardiac or respiratory arrest and/or stroke.

Some individuals are prone to produce these blood clots over the long haul, and the first treatment choice would likely be the use of an oral anticoagulant. There are some individuals, however, that for one reason or another cannot take blood thinners. These people often have umbrella-like devices like the G2 IVC filter placed in the IVC to strain out these life-threatening clots.

As alleged in the narrative of the master complaint, C.R. Bard Co. desired to gain a more lucrative corner on the market and attempted to promote newer versions of the device like the G2 IVC filter for short-term use. These were geared to people whose risks of developing clots were passing threats, such as hip and knee replacement patients, those undergoing bariatric surgery, or current treatment for cancer.

The newer versions were allegedly removable, and all advertising presented them as such. The first such device was approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration mid-year in 2003. Plaintiffs claim this approval was allegedly based on a lack of supporting data indicating that the device was safe.

Later a study that reviewed the cases of 30,000 trauma patients with implanted IVC filters that were removable, produced data underscoring their lack of safety or efficacy.

According to the published study mentioned in the IVC filter lawsuit, compared to a control group without filters, double the number of patients with IVC filters passed away, five times as many people experienced DVT, and twice as many went so far and to develop PE.