C.R. Bard is facing a growing multidistrict litigation (MDL) from numerous claimants alleging serious device complications in conjunction with the Meridian vena cava filter and other Bard IVC filters.

One of the most recent IVC filter lawsuits comes from a Florida man who opted for the Meridian vena cava filter, and allegedly suffered IVC filter complications soon after implantation.

Plaintiff Michael G. claims he opted for the Meridian vena cava filter after discussing the option with his physician and reviewing Bard’s marketing materials. Like other patients, Michael was seeking IVC filter treatment for blood clot prevention and could not be prescribed an anticoagulant.

These filter devices are small metal cage-like devices that are directly implanted in the body’s vena cava vein. As the largest vein in the human body, the vena cava is vital for the body’s circulation process.

IVC filter devices are meant to prevent blood clots forming in the legs and pelvis from traveling up into the heart or lungs. Patients can choose between permanent or retrievable IVC filter models, with patients having the option of having the device later removed.

However, these temporary IVC filter models have been alleged to be composed of inferior components that are prone to breaking apart while inside the patient.

Overview of IVC Filter Lawsuit

Michael had the Meridian vena cava filter implanted and had no initial complications, but it was not long after that he allegedly experienced the adverse effects of device failure.

At all times relevant, Michael says, he used the Meridian vena cava filter for its intended purpose and did not deviate from medical instructions. Even with this diligence, Michael still allegedly suffered IVC filter complications; he had no previous awareness of the risk possibilities.

C.R. Bard allegedly was aware of these problems, as the FDA released previous warnings against IVC filter complications. The first warning was released in 2010, when the FDA stated it had received 921 injury reports since 2005 including:

• 328 reports of IVC filter Migration
• 146 reports of IVC filter Component Detachment
• 70 reports of IVC filter Perforation
• 56 reports of IVC filter Fracture

At the time, the FDA cautioned physicians from prescribing IVC filter for long term treatment and stated that the devices should be removed after the blood clot risk is resolved. The FDA issued an updated warning in May 2014, stating the IVC filter should be removed between 29 and 54 days after implantation.

Even though IVC filter complications were potential risks that could compound the patient’s medical condition, C.R. Bard and other manufacturing companies allegedly failed to disclose this information.

There was no language nor indication of potential device failure or complications on the Meridian vena cava filter warning label, nor did the manufacturing company provide any relevant studies.

Michael states he never would have opted for the Meridian vena cava filter if he had known about the chances of device failure. Michael is filing his IVC filter lawsuit in MDL No. 2641, where it will stand alongside other claims alleging similar injuries.

This IVC Filter Lawsuit is Case No. 2:17-cv-03310-DGC, in the U.S. District Court for the District of Arizona.