A Missouri resident is filing a blood clot filter injury lawsuit against C.R. Bard, alleging the company’s defective inferior vena cava (IVC) filtration device compounded their medical condition. This blood clot filter injury lawsuit joins a growing multidistrict litigation (MDL), consisting of other claims alleging similar IVC filter complications.

Plaintiff Wendell J. is filing this blood clot filter injury lawsuit after discovering the IVC filtration device was at risk for breaking and migrating away from the implant location. Additionally, the plaintiff alleges the companies failed to warn against possible complications.

According to the blood clot filter injury lawsuit, Wendell opted for the Simon Nitinol IVC filter and underwent an implant procedure on Jan. 27, 2001. Wendell alleges he has had to contend with the allegedly defective IVC filter inside the vein, which increases the risks of vein perforation and other serious complications.

According to the blood clot injury lawsuit, Wendell was prescribed the Nitinol IVC filter for typical treatment purposes and had agreed to having the device implanted after reviewing the marketing materials presented by the company.

Overview of IVC Filter Complications

IVC filters are prescribed to patients who cannot be prescribed anticoagulant therapy, which can prevent potentially fatal blood clot attacks. IVC filters are small metal cage like devices that are directly implanted into the vena cava, the largest vein in the human body and a vital part of the body’s circulation system.

IVC filters work by trapping and preventing blood clots forming in the legs or pelvis from traveling to the heart and lungs. However, certain IVC filter devices have been recently linked to serious injury reports, stemming from the devices either breaking apart or migrating away from their implant site while inside the patient.

The FDA released a public safety warning regarding IVC filter complications in 2010, stating it had received 921 injury reports since 2005 consisting of:

• 328 injury reports of IVC Filter Migration
• 146 injury reports of IVC Filter Component Detatchment
• 70 injury reports of IVC Filter Perforation
• 56 injury reports of IVC Filter Fracture

At the time the FDA issued the warning, the agency stated these device complications were more likely in long term patients.

The FDA further stated IVC filters were only intended as a temporary solution for patients at risk for blood clot attack, and should be removed soon after the risk resolves itself. The FDA issued an updated warning in May 2014, stating the device should generally be removed between 29 and 54 days after implantation. The FDA also warned doctors to be cautious when prescribing IVC filters by evaluating the risks and benefits present in each patient.

In his blood clot filter injury lawsuit, Wendell states he would not have agreed to have the IVC filter device implanted, if he had known the potential for device complications.

Wendell says he relied on the statements provided to him and his physician, and is now forced to contend with the Simon Nitinol IVC filter potentially making the medical condition worse. Wendell’s blood clot filter injury lawsuit is being filed in MDL No. 2641, consisting of claims from patients also alleging C.R. Bard’s IVC filter devices had compounded their medical conditions.

This Blood Clot Filter Lawsuit is Case No. 2:18-cv-00570-DGC, in the U.S. District Court of Arizona.