A federal judicial panel has centralized all federally filed Bard IVC filter lawsuits in an Arizona federal court.

The U.S. Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation (JPML) issued an order on Aug. 17 to transfer 22 Bard IVC Filter lawsuits to Arizona where U.S. District Judge David G. Campbell will coordinate the pretrial proceedings.

The JMPL favored consolidation in Arizona because Bard Peripheral Vascular, Inc., Bard’s entity that designs, tests, markets, labels and conducts post-market surveillance of the IVC filters, is headquartered there.

According to the transfer order, all of the cases had common factual questions arising from allegations that defects in the design of Bard’s retrievable inferior vena cava filters (IVC filters) make them more likely to fracture, migrate, tilt, or perforate the inferior vena cava and cause injury, according to court documents.

The panel stated that centralization will eliminate duplicative discovery, avoid inconsistent pretrial rulings, and conserve resources for all parties and the court.

While Bard opposed the MDL, plaintiffs have argued that the number of IVC filter lawsuits will grow exponentially over the next few months and years, and could result in thousands of similar product liability lawsuits against the manufacturer of the allegedly faulty device.

It is projected that 500,000 or more IVC filters are within the qualified dates for the Bard IVC filter multidistrict litigation.

What are IVC Filters?

IVC filters are small devices designed to catch blood clots that may break free from lower parts of the body and travel toward the heart or lungs. The retrievable filters are implanted in patients who are at risk for a pulmonary embolism, especially those who are unable to take blood thinners or when those medications have failed.

The Bard Recovery IVC Filter received approval by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration in 2002 through the FDA’s 510(k) process, which does not require manufacturers to conduct studies on their devices as long as the products are similar to an existing device on the market.

In 2005, Bard took the Recovery IVC Filter off the market and replaced it with the Bard G2 IVC filter, which the company said would provide “enhanced fracture resistance,” “improved centering” and “increased migration resistance.”

In August 2010, the FDA issued a safety alert stating that it had received 921 adverse event reports since 2005 involving IVC filters, of which 328 involved device migration, 146 involved the components detaching, 70 involved perforation of the IVC, and 56 involved filter fracture.

The federal agency said it was concerned that the retrievable IVC filters, intended for short-term placement, were not always removed once a patient’s risk for a pulmonary embolism subsided.

IVC Filter Lawsuits

You may have a case against C.R. Bard if your or a loved one have suffered the following after being implanted with the IVC filter device:

• IVC thrombosis
• Access site thrombosis
• Deep vein thrombosis (DVT)
• Filter migration
• IVC filter fracture
• Caval penetration

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