A New Jersey woman has filed a Meridian vena cava filter lawsuit against the device’s manufacturers, citing negligence and design defect, among other counts.

Plaintiff Nichole B. was implanted with the C.R. Bard Meridian vena cava filter. Her Meridian vena cava lawsuit is joining the larger MDL of lawsuits alleging similar counts of strict products liability and negligence.

In her Meridian vena cava lawsuit, she has brought forth counts of strict products liability including manufacturing defect, information defect and design defect.

Under negligence, she is citing design, manufacture, failure to warn and failure to recall. According to her Meridian vena cava lawsuit, Nichole is also holding C.R. Bard liable for negligent misrepresentation, negligence per se, breach of express warranty, breach of implied warranty, fraudulent misrepresentation and fraudulent concealment.

This Meridian Vena Cava Lawsuit is Case No. 2:17-cv-02764 in the United States District Court for the District of Arizona.

What is a Meridian Vena Cava Filter?

Inferior vena cava filters are small metal devices shaped somewhat like a spider. These devices are placed inside the inferior vena cava, the main vein of the body, to keep blood clots from traveling to the heart, lungs or brain.

Sometimes, clots form deep in the veins of the legs or hips after an accident or surgery. When this happens, those clots can break loose and travel. Often people with such a risk are placed on blood thinning medication. There are times, however, that blood thinning medication is not a good idea for patients.

In these cases, a physician might suggest the implantation of an inferior vena cava filter. These devices may seem like they are helpful to patients, however, there have been numerous reports of serious complications from these filters.

Some of these complications include IVC thrombosis, deep vein thrombosis, access site thrombosis, filter migration, caval penetration and inferior vena cava filter fracture. In fact, between 2005 and 2010, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration reported that it had received 921 adverse event reports for inferior vena cava filters.

Additionally, over three hundred of those reports had to do with inferior vena cava filter migration, nearly 150 of them with detached filter components and 70 of them with perforation of the vein itself. Fifty-six reports cited filter fracture.

The FDA has newly suggested that vena cava filters should be removed promptly once the risk for blood clots has passed. The longer the inferior vena cava filter is left in the body, the greater the risk of serious complications for the patient. Indeed, the FDA encourages inferior vena cava filters to be removed between 29 and 54 days after implantation.

All of these reports of severe complications have prompted lawsuits such as this Meridian vena cava filter lawsuit. Plaintiffs in this MDL claim that Bard knew or should have known about the risks of filter fracture, filter migration and filter perforation.

If you or someone you love has been adversely affected by a Meridian vena cava filter or another inferior vena cava filter, you may be entitled to legal compensation.