After experiencing blood clot filter side effects, a consumer has filed a lawsuit against Bard aiming to hold the manufacturer accountable for releasing an allegedly defective product.

Plaintiff Noel B. recently filed a lawsuit against C.R. Bard Inc. after she experienced blood clot filter side effects. In August 2009, Noel was implanted with the G2 X Vena Cava Filter. She says she later experienced blood clot filter side effects which were allegedly a direct result of the filter’s defective nature. Noel’s spouse Milagros B. is also participating in the lawsuit, bringing loss of consortium claims.

Inferior vena cava (IVC) filters are devices implanted into the inferior vena cava to catch any clots traveling toward the lungs from the deep leg veins. These devices are often used in patients who cannot manage their clotting risks with medication and need surgical intervention to avoid potentially deadly clots in the lungs, also known as pulmonary embolism. There are a wide variety of IVC filters available for implantation in consumers, but reportedly not all filters are of the same quality.

Bard manufacturers many IVC Filters, including the G2 X filter that Noel was implanted with in 2009. However, reports received by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) show that Bard products may be dangerous and associated with blood clot filter side effects.

A review of the FDA MAUDE database reportedly showed that Bard IVC filters were responsible for 50 percent of all IVC filter adverse event reports. The database also showed that Bard products were associated with blood clot filter side effects including perforation of tissues and organs, severe and persistence pain, cardiac arrhythmia, cardiac/pericardial tamponade, hemorrhage, and death.

In her lawsuit, Noel claims that the blood clot filter side effects associated with Bard IVC filters are caused by the failure of to design a filter which could withstand the normal force associated with blood flow. Noel argues that Bard knew or should have known that their products were potentially dangerous, but continued to mislead consumers and sell defective IVC filters prone to blood clot filter side effects.

“Bard’s conduct misled, deceived, and damaged Plaintiffs, and Bard’s fraudulent, misleading, and deceptive conduct was perpetrated with an intent that Plaintiffs rely on said conduct by purchasing and/or paying for purchases of Bard IVC Filters,” the blood clot filter side effects lawsuit states. “Moreover, Bard knowingly took advantage of Plaintiffs, who were unable to protect their own interests due to ignorance of the harmful adverse effects of Bard IVC Filters.”

The blood clot filter side effects lawsuit accuses Bard of manufacturing defect, failure to warn, design defect, negligence, negligent misrepresentation, breach of warranty, fraudulent misrepresentation, fraudulent concealment, loss of consortium, and violation of D.C. consumer protection laws. Noel and Milagros seek compensatory damages, punitive damages, disgorgement, restitution, statutory damages, court costs, and attorneys’ fees.

The Bard IVC Filter Lawsuit is Case No. 2:18-cv-02344-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 United States District Court for the District of Arizona.