Lawyers will meet in late October to discuss the dozens of IVC Filter lawsuits recently consolidated into a multidistrict litigation. Many of the cases involve C.R. Bard’s Recovery and G2 devices.

At least 41 IVC lawsuits have been filed in the District of Arizona on behalf of patients who suffered perforations of the inferior vena cava and other dangerous IVC filter complications, allegedly due to defects in the design and manufacture of the G2 and Recovery IVC filters.

Plaintiffs claim that the filters, which are intended for temporary placement in the inferior vena cava in order to prevent blood clots from traveling to the lungs, are prone to migration and fracture.

The federal court overseeing the MDL intends to appoint lead or liaison counsel for both plaintiffs and defendants, and asks that applications for plaintiffs’ counsel be filed electronically by Oct. 9.

The attorneys for both the plaintiffs and defendants are to submit a proposed conference agenda to the court, the U.S. District Court for the District of Arizona, no later than Oct. 9.

About Bard IVC Filters

Bard brought the Recovery IVC filter to market in 2003, and replaced it with the G2 system just two years later. Both devices are implanted into the inferior vena cava in order to catch blood clots before they can travel to the lungs and become a pulmonary embolism. The filters are intended to be removed once the blood clot threat has passed.

Since 2010, the U.S. Food & Drug Administration (FDA) has issued two safety alerts regarding the use of retrievable IVC filters. In March 2010, the agency disclosed that it had received more than 900 adverse event reports involving the devices, including incidents of migration, fracture and embolization, and perforation of the inferior vena cava.

IVC Filter Complications

Research studies confirm the problems with the retrievable IVC filters. A 2013 research study published in the Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA) looked at the device’s failure. It reviewed medical records of a level 1 trauma center for the indications, complications and management of the IVC filters.

According to the JAMA study, only 58 out of 679 (less than 10 percent) of retrievable IVC filters inserted were actually removed. The study also found that the majority of the filters remained in patients longer than medically necessary, leading to complications such as venous thrombotic events or pulmonary embolism.

In May of last year, the FDA issued a second notice to remind doctors that retrievable IVC filters should be removed within 29 to 54 days of their implantation.

Bard IVC Filter Litigation

Court documents indicate that at least 50 IVC filter lawsuits are now pending in the District of Arizona, all of which claim that the Recovery and G2 devices are prone to fracture, migrate, tilt or perforate the inferior vena cava, resulting in serious injury to patients.

Plaintiffs also accuse C.R. Bard of failing to provide doctors with adequate warnings regarding the importance of removing the filters once a patient is no longer in danger of suffering blood clots, as failure to retrieve the devices greatly increases the risk of injury and complications.

As part of coordinated pre-trial proceedings in the IVC filter litigation against Bard, it is expected that a small group of cases will be prepared for early trial dates, known as bellwether trials.

The outcome of these bellwether trials are designed to test how juries will react to evidence or aid settlement negotiations, especially if the jury sides with the injured plaintiffs and awards a large damage award, or, in cases involving gross negligence, awarding punitive damages, which are designed to punish the company for its reckless behavior.

The Bard IVC Filter MDL is In Re: Bard IVC Filters Products Liability Litigation, MDL No. 2641, U.S. District Court for the District of Arizona.