A Delaware man recently filed a blood clot filter lawsuit against C.R. Bard alleging serious device complications. His blood clot filter lawsuit is joining a growing multidistrict litigation (MDL) consisting of claims alleging serious IVC filter complications.

Plaintiff Christopher F. filed this blood clot filter lawsuit after discovering the allegedly defective nature of the device he was prescribed. According to the blood clot filter lawsuit, Christopher had the Eclipse Vena Cava Filter implanted for typical treatment purposes and had no reason to believe he was at risk for IVC filter complications.

At the time he was prescribed the Eclipse Vena Cava Filter, Christopher and his physician were presented marketing materials from C.R. Bard that touted the inferior vena cava (IVC) filter as an ideal choice for Christopher’s situation. Like other patients prescribed IVC filters anticoagulant treatment was not an option for Christopher.

IVC filter devices are small cage-like devices, which are directly implanted in the largest vein in the human body. As an alternative to anticoagulant medications, IVC filters are implanted directly in the vena cava to help counteract the formation of blood clots rather than inhibit the body’s clotting mechanism.

IVC filters work by trapping blood clots formed in the legs or pelvis and prevent them from traveling to the heart and lungs. However, recent injury reports alleging device migration and perforation have spurred major concern in the patient population and medical community.

Christopher and numerous other patients allege they have developed chronic or even permanent health issues as a result of the IVC filter, which resulted in the formation of this MDL.

Overview of IVC Filter Complications

When IVC filters were first introduced to the market, they were only meant for permanent fixation and once implanted became a permanent part of the body’s circulation. In more recent years, manufacturing companies like Bard have released retrievable models that can be removed at a later time.

However, many patients have alleged the temporary models are defectively made and are prone to breaking apart while inside the vena cava. The FDA issued a warning regarding IVC filter complications in 2010, stating it received 921 injury reports since 2005.  These reports included:

• 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

The FDA warned patients that the chances of IVC filter complications increase in conjunction with long-term use of the device, and the device should be removed after the blood clot subsides. The FDA issued an additional warning in May 2014, stating the IVC filter should generally be removed between 29 and 54 days after implantation.

Even though these problems are potentially dangerous risks, C.R. Bard and other manufacturers allegedly failed to warn patients. Christopher states he would not have opted for the Eclipse Vena Cava Filter if he had known about the potential IVC filter complications. Christopher’s blood clot filter lawsuit is joining MDL No. 2641, where he and other claimants alleging similar injuries.

This Blood Clot Filter Lawsuit is Case No. 2:18-cv-00475-DGC, in the U.S. District Court for the District of Arizona.