An injured patient has filed an IVC filter lawsuit against the device’s manufacturer, C.R. Bard Inc., claiming the faulty device migrated from its intended position and penetrated his inferior vena cava, making the device impossible to remove.

The IVC lawsuit states that in 2009 Plaintiff Dean B. had a G2 Filter implanted into his inferior vena cava as a way to treat blood clots. When Dean’s physicians informed him in 2015 that the IVC filter was defective, Dean underwent surgery in hopes of retrieving the device.

The surgery was unsuccessful, and Dean’s doctors told him that the probability of successfully removing the IVC filter was slim.

Dean says that just knowing the IVC filter is somewhere in his body and is incapable of being removed is causing constant stress and anxiety. The IVC lawsuit alleges that due to the failure of the medical device, Dean is unable to enjoy the life he once had, including international travel or strenuous physical activity.

According to Dean’s lawsuit, Bard knew that the IVC filter was dangerous but the manufacturer intentionally failed to warn the medical community or patients that the filter could migrate, fracture, or otherwise malfunction. The IVC filter lawsuit further claims that Bard failed to perform adequate testing that would have proven the medical device could cause life-threatening complications.

Dean is suing Bard for negligent misrepresentation, stating that Bard distributed information such as press releases, reports, and advertising materials that were false and misleading, and which and concealed the truth about the dangers of the G2 Filter.

IVC Filter Side Effects

When blood thinners cannot be used to help prevent clots that could lead to strokes, an IVC filter can be used. The IVC filter is a small, cage-like metal trap that is placed in the main vein (vena cava) in order to trap blood clots and keep them there until the body dissolves them.

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration has approved IVC filters for the following reasons:

• Emergency treatment following massive pulmonary embolism when expected benefits of traditional therapy are reduced
• When anticoagulant therapy fails to work in thromboembolic diseases
• To treat pulmonary thromboembolism when blood thinners shouldn’t be used
• Recurring pulmonary embolism when anticoagulant use has failed

The FDA has received at least 920 adverse event reports about IVC filters. The agency believes that some of the events may have occurred because the IVC filters were left in the body for long periods of time.

Multiple companies manufacture IVC filters, but according to the IVC filter lawsuit, Bard’s filter is prone to an unreasonably high risk of failure. The IVC filter lawsuit cites multiple studies reporting that the Bard IVC filter has a fracture and migration rate of up to 31 percent.

When an IVC filter migrates, pieces of the device or the entire filter can travel to the heart, where it can perforate the atrial wall, cause myocardial infarction, or even death. These fractured IVC pieces may also become too embedded in tissue or migrate to locations, such as the lungs, that make them too dangerous to remove. Patients suffering from these effects are exposed to a lifetime of future risk.

If you have experienced adverse effects from an IVC filter, you may have a legal claim.

Dean’s IVC Filter Lawsuit is Case No. 2:15-cv-02155-DGC in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California.