C.R. Bard is facing a growing multidistrict litigation (MDL), consisting of product liability claims alleging serious IVC filter complications. One of the most recent additions comes from a Nevada woman, alleging C.R. Bard failed to warn her against IVC filter complications.

Plaintiff Lisa R. is filing legal action against C.R. Bard, citing similar IVC filter complications that have allegedly forced many patients to undergo revision surgery to have the medical device removed. According to the IVC filter lawsuit, Lisa had agreed to have the Eclipse Vena Cava filter implanted and the procedure done Oct. 25, 2012.

Lisa says she agreed to having the device implemented after her physician had reviewed marketing materials provided by C.R. Bard. These advertisements, according to the complaint, assured Lisa that the Eclipse Vena Cava filter was a good choice for patients like her and were perfectly safe for human implantation.

Overview of IVC Filter Complications

IVC (inferor vena cava) filters are small metal cage like devices that are implanted in the vena cava. The vena cava is the largest vein in the human body, making it an ideal location for IVC filters because they are meant to be an alternative to anticoagulants.

IVC filters are supposed to work by preventing blood clots that formed in the legs or pelvis, from traveling to the lungs or heart. This prevents blood clot attack without the intervention of anticoagulant treatment.

When IVC filters were first released into the market, they were meant for permanent placement only. However, retrievable models are now available, and are increasingly popular with patients.

A number of patients have reportedly developed serious IVC filter complications from these retrievable models including:

• Fracture or Migration of the IVC Filter
• Heart, Lung, Vena Cava or Other Tissue Perforation
• Cardiac or Pericardial Tamponade
• Ventrical Tachycardia
• Persistent Chest Pain
• Shortness of Breath

The IVC filter complications Lisa experienced has compounded her medical condition. She says she opted to file legal action after discovering the allegedly defective nature of the Eclipse Vena Cava filter.

The FDA released an official warning regarding IVC filter complications in 2010, after receiving 921 injury reports since 2005. According to the FDA warning, it had received the following IVC filter injury reports during this time period:

• 328 of IVC Filter Migration
• 146 of IVC Filter Component Detachment
• 70 of IVC Filter Perforation
• 56 of IVC Filter Fracture

In this warning, the FDA stated that IVC filter complications were more likely in patients who were using the device on a long term basis. The FDA further stated that IVC filters were only meant as a temporary measure, and should be explanted after the blood clot risk is resolved.

The FDA released a later warning in May 2014 stating that IVC filters generally should be removed between 29 to 54 days after implantation. Even though these IVC filter complications can be devastating to patients’ health, C.R. Bard and other manufacturers allegedly failed to warn the public.

Lisa’s IVC filter lawsuit is joining MDL No. 2641, where it will stand alongside other claims alleging similar IVC filter complications.

This IVC Filter Lawsuit is Case No. 2:18-cv-00896-DGC, in the U.S. District Court of Arizona.