A Texas woman has joined the MDL for Bard vena cava filter lawsuits claiming that her medical device was defective.

Plaintiff Sandra D. has filed a Bard vena cava filter lawsuit against C.R. Bard, Inc. and Bard Peripheral Vascular, Inc. claiming that her Denali Vena Cava Filter led to unexpected and dangerous complications.

Her Bard vena cava filter lawsuit will stand alongside other Bard vena cava filter lawsuits in a multidistrict litigation (MDL) that will attempt to streamline the litigation process and provide continuity to rulings and discovery.

In her Bard vena cava filter lawsuit, Sandra is bringing forth counts of failure to warn, design defect, negligence, failure to retrofit/recall, information defect, negligent misrepresentation, breach of express warranty, breach of implied warranty, fraudulent misrepresentation and fraudulent concealment among others.

Sandra is demanding a jury trial for her Bard vena cava filter lawsuit.

What are Patients Saying about the Bard Vena Cava Filter?

Sandra is not the only patient to bring forth legal complaints about the Bard vena cava filter, nor is she the first. Many other patients allege that the Bard vena cava filter is defective and has caused them severe complications.

A Bard vena cava filter is a small, metal device shaped somewhat like an umbrella that is placed inside the vena cava. This is done in order to keep blood clots from traveling to parts of the body where they can do damage. When a blood clot is caught in a Bard vena cava filter, it eventually dissolves and dissipates.

Some vena cava filter devices were originally designed to be retrievable. The FDA has recommended that they stay in the body only for the amount of time during which a patient is at risk for a blood clot. Retrievable Bard vena cava filter devices are supposed to be removed after a period of time.

Most patients who were implanted with vena cava filters could not, for different reasons, safely take blood thinning medication. Therefore, the vena cava filter market was narrow and not lucrative, the  MDL suggests. According to the Bard vena cava filter MDL, “In order to increase sales of these devices, Bard sought to expand the market for prophylactic use among nontraditional patient populations that were temporarily at risk of developing blood clots.”

Allegedly, “Bard targeted the bariatric, trauma, orthopedic and cancer patient population. Expansion to these new patient groups would triple sales and the first manufacturer to market would capture market share.”

These “temporary” Bard vena cava filter devices were intended to be removed when the risk for blood clotting had passed. But, the MDL alleges, these temporary devices were ineffective and fraught with problems.

Patients have reported many problems associated with their Bard vena cava filter devices. These problems include filter migration, IVC thrombosis, deep vein thrombosis, access site thrombosis, penetration, and filter fracture.

If you have been implanted with a Bard vena cava filter and have experienced problems associated with it, you may be eligible to file legal action. Speaking with an experienced attorney can help you discover your best legal pathway.

Sandra’s Bard Vena Cava Filter lawsuit is Case No. 2:15-md-02641-DGC in the United States District Court for the District of Arizona.