A Massachusetts resident says his vena cava filter procedure caused injury because of a defect in IVC filters made by Bard.

Plaintiff Jeff V. says that he had G2 Vena Cava Filter implanted in his body when he lived in Texas, on Sept. 11, 2007. He says that the device was made by Bard and that defects in the device caused him injury due to the vena cava filter procedure. 

He aims to hold Bard liable for his injury. He claims that the company was negligent in producing and selling a dangerous product, and should have warned patients and the medical community that the device was defective.

Jeff joins a growing multi-district litigation of patients who say that a range of filters used in vena cava procedures are defective in their design and can cause injury.

Inferior vena cava filters (IVC) filters are medical devices used to prevent blood clots from moving through the body, possibly causing conditions including deep vein thrombosis, stroke, and pulmonary embolism. IVC filters catch blood clots before they move to the patients’ heart and lungs.

Some IVC filters are permanent, but some are designed to be removed when a patient’s risk of blood clots has decreased. Bard manufactures a range of removable IVC filters that are coming under fire for possible design defects.

Patients claim that Bard’s devices are extremely difficult to remove, causing patients injury. Allegedly, these filters have many design defects that can make them dangerous even before a doctor attempts to remove them.

Patients like Jeff say that the devices can degrade when they are in a patient’s body, and can perforate or puncture a person’s vena cava. Additionally, patients say that after vena cava filter procedures in which the filter is implanted, the devices have been known to break apart in a person’s body, causing pieces of the device to float through a patient’s bloodstream. This is dangerous, especially when the pieces become lodged in a patient’s lungs.

Other patients say that the devices can migrate from where they are initially implanted, and can dangerously become implanted improperly into a patient’s body.

The types of Bard filters that patients claim are defective include:

Recovery Vena Cava Filter

G2 Vena Cava Filter

G2 Express Vena Cava Filter

GS X Vena Cava Filter

Eclipse Vena Cava Filter

Meridian Vena Cava Filter

Denali Vena Cava Filter

Allegedly, IVC filters were first approved to decrease patients’ risk of pulmonary embolism but were then expanded in uses. Patients say that Bard responded to a growing demand for removable IVC filters by releasing a number of these devices quickly, to capitalize on the market trend.

According to the vena cava filter procedure injury multidistrict litigation, “Bard engaged in an aggressive marketing campaign for the filter, despite negative clinical data,” essentially putting profits above patient health.

The patients in the vena cava filter procedure injury multi-district litigation go on to say that Bard used loopholes in the FDA approval process for medical devices to get their removable IVC filters approved without sufficient testing by saying they are “substantially similar” to permanent IVC filters, which patients claim are designed differently and not similar enough. Allegedly, Bard should have conducted more testing on the removable filters before releasing them onto the market.

The IVC Filter Procedure Injury Lawsuit is Case No. 2:18-cv-02941-DGC, in the U.S. District Court for the District of Arizona.