A woman who says she was injured by her vena cava filter alleges that the Bard Recovery IVC filter is defective and can cause complications.

Plaintiff Maria F. says she was implanted with the Bard Recovery IVC filter in April 2004. Due to defects allegedly associated with the products, Maria claims she suffered from complications – leading her to file her lawsuit against C.R. Bard Inc. and Bard Peripheral Vascular Inc.

When blood travels through the deep veins of the legs, it can be prone to clotting. These clots can then travel up the legs, through the vena cava, and into the lungs where they can cause pulmonary emboli. Pulmonary emboli occur when the arteries in the lungs are blocked, restricting the absorption of oxygen. These clots can be life threatening due to the effect they have on breathing and the oxygenation of blood.

In patients with a history of pulmonary emboli, doctor may decide to implant with an inferior vena cava (IVC) filter. These devices are implanted and anchored in the IVC where they can break apart clots traveling up from the deep veins in the legs. IVC filters were traditionally suggested in patients who could not be placed on blood thinners, but the uses have since diversified to include bariatric, trauma, orthopedic, and cancer patients.

The Bard Recovery IVC filter was approved for use by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) in 2002 after it cleared the agency’s 501(k) approval process. This process approves devices by proving they are substantially similar to a device which has already been approved and is being sold on the market.

Two levels of six struts anchor the Bard Recovery IVC filter in the blood vessel and catch clots. However, Maria argues that the Bard Recovery IVC filter is incapable of withstanding the pressure exerted by blood flow. Maria claims that this alleged defect can lead to tilting, blood vessel perforation, migration, and other complications. The device allegedly also suffers from manufacturing defects which make it weak and prone to fracturing in the body.

According to the Bard Recovery IVC Filter lawsuit, Bard was aware that its device was defective but continued to aggressively market their product as safe and effective.

“Despite knowing that the Recovery filter was substantially more likely to fracture, migrate, tilt, and cause death than any other filter, Bard marketed its IVC filters as being safer and more effective than all other filters throughout the lifecycle of the product,” Maria argues in her Bard Recovery IVC Filter lawsuit.

Maria accuses Bard of manufacturing defect, failure to warn, design defect, negligence, failure to recall, negligent misrepresentation, breach of warranties, fraudulent misrepresentation, fraudulent concealment, and violation of consumer protection laws.

The Bard Recovery IVC filter lawsuit seeks compensatory damages, punitive damages, disgorgement, restitution, statutory damages, court costs, and attorneys’ fees.

The Bard Recovery IVC Filter Lawsuit is Case No. 2:18-cv-04911-DGC and is part of the Bard 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.