The maker of an inferior vena cava (IVC) filter, C.R. Bard, faces a new blood clot filter complications lawsuit filed by a Louisiana resident who says that he suffered serious injuries and adverse side effects from the device’s implantation.

Plaintiff Jermaine H. files the blood clot filter complications lawsuit joining thousands of others in a continuously growing multidistrict litigation (MDL) pending against the company. Jermaine has filed his claim in the U.S. District Court for the District of Arizona demanding a trial by jury.

According to the blood clot filter complications lawsuit, Jermaine says that he was implanted with the IVC filter device on Sept. 19, 2011. However, he says he soon suffered from “IVC filter perforation, migration, tilt, and embedment,” the lawsuit states. The IVC filter also allegedly perforated his abdominal aorta and intervertebral disc.

The blood clot filter complications lawsuit was filed on multiple counts including manufacturing defect, information defect, design defect, negligence, negligent misrepresentation, breach of express warranty, breach of implied warranty, fraudulent misrepresentation and violations of applicable Louisiana law prohibiting consumer fraud and unfair and deceptive trade practices, among other violations.

Overview: Blood Clot Filter Complications Lawsuit

The IVC filter is a medical device that is inserted in the body’s main vein, the inferior vena cava, to filter out blood clots within the bloodstream.

The device helps prevent conditions such as deep vein thrombosis (DVT) and pulmonary embolism (PE). A DVT occurs when a blood clot forms in a lower extremity, and a PE occurs when a blood clot migrates up towards the lungs.

However, there have been many adverse side effects linked to the IVC filter causing patients to suffer numerous injuries and complications. Adverse  side effects have included device migration, filter fracture, device infection and perforated organs, among many others. Many patients who have suffered from a defective IVC filter have said that they have experienced symptoms such as shortness of breath, nausea, heart rhythm problems, lightheadedness, hypotension, stroke and severe chest pain.

Additionally, unless there is a very good reason to keep the IVC filter implanted where it is, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) recommends IVC filter removal once the risk of a clot has passed.

A safety communication by the FDA in August 2010 suggests that retrievable IVC filters should only be placed for short-term placement. When left for longer periods of time they may lead to adverse side effects and complications that have included IVC perforation, filter embolization, filter fracture and filter migration.

Unfortunately, despite FDA recommendations for filter removal, physicians were not removing the filters. FDA generally recommends that IVC filters be removed between the 29th and 54 day of implantation.

The Blood Clot Filter Complications Lawsuit is Case No. 2:18-cv-04600-DGC, in the U.S. District Court for the District of Arizona. The BARD IVC Filter MDL is in re: Bard IVC Filters Products Liability Litigation, MDL No. 2:15-MD-02641-DGC, in the U.S. District of Arizona.