An Indiana man has filed a lawsuit via a short form complaint within the larger C.R. Bard MDL alleging that his IVC filter made by the company caused him personal injury.

Plaintiff Michael F. had the Eclipse vena cava filter implanted on Aug. 14, 2010 and suffered unspecified injuries thereafter, according to his claim.

Michael has raised a number of allegations against the manufacturer including strict products liability for manufacturing defect, design defect and information defect (failure to warn), counts of negligence in design, manufacture, failure to recall/retrofit and failure to warn, negligent misrepresentation, negligence per se, breach of express and implied warranties, fraudulent misrepresentation, fraudulent concealment, violations of applicable Indiana law prohibiting consumer fraud and unfair and deceptive trade practices and punitive damages.

He is seeking a jury trial for unspecified damages.

The Eclipse Vena Cava Filter Lawsuit is Case No. 2:17-cv-01845-DCG and is part of the C.R. Bard IVC Filter MDL In re: Bard IVC Filters Products Liability Litigation, MDL No. 2641, in the U.S. District Court for the District of Arizona.

Common Issues Noted with the Eclipse Vena Cava Filter MDL

Due to the large number of lawsuits against C.R. Bard with common allegations that the company’s IVC filters were defective and caused personal injury, a multidistrict litigation was established in Arizona federal court.

At the time of the most recent update by the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation, there were 2005 IVC filter lawsuits pending in the Bard IVC filter MDL.

The lawsuits in the Bard MDL specifically refer to the retrievable type of IVC filters. IVC filters, technically referred to as inferior vena cava filters, are implanted in the vena cava, the body’s largest vein that brings blood from the lower extremities back up to the heart.

Implanting a filter is designed to reduce the risk of having a blood clots travel from the lower part of the body back to the lungs where they can cause pulmonary embolism, stroke or heart attack.

The retrievable filters are supposed to be removed once the danger of blood clots has passed, as opposed to the initial IVC filters that were released onto the market that were intended for permanent implantation.

The Bard lawsuit states that the retrievable filters “were not effective in preventing pulmonary emboli, and instead actually caused thrombi to occur.” This was demonstrated in a study published in October 2015 in the Annals of Surgery.

The lawsuit details the issues specific to each type of filter as well as the common issues among them. It explains that the Eclipse vena cava filter was released in 2010 as an attempt to resolve complications seen in previous filters, yet it was not successful in doing so.

Reports of similar complications with its predecessor filters were reported, which include:

• Filter fracture, with the fractured pieces or hold filter traveling to the heart where they can cause “cardiac tamponade, perforation of the atrial wall, myocardial infarction, and/or death.”
• Filter tilting
• Filter rendered less effective or useless
• Perforation of the vena cava, aorta, duodenum, small bowel, spine or ureter
• Filter failure, allowing blood clots to pass to the heart and lungs

Filing a Lawsuit over Eclipse Vena Cava Filter Complications

If you have experienced complications resulting from the implantation of the Eclipse vena cava filter, you may be eligible to file an IVC filter lawsuit against the manufacturer. An attorney experienced with understanding the issues surrounding IVC filters can provide you with a free case consultation to explain your rights and opportunities with respect to taking legal action.