C.R. Bard is facing a growing number of IVC filter lawsuits alleging the company failed to warn its customers against potential device complications associated with their vena cava filter products.

One of the most recent IVC filter lawsuits was filed by a woman from Florida, who also alleges IVC filter risks were not adequately disclosed to her or her physician.

Plaintiff Kathryn K. reportedly had the Bard vena cava filter implanted on Feb. 10, 2009 for typical treatment purposes and had no reason to believe she was at risk for any serious complications.

IVC filters are small metal cage-like devices which are directly implanted into the inferior vena cava. This is the largest vein in the human body and is a major part of the body’s circulation system.

IVC filters are designed to trap blood clots forming in the legs or pelvis and prevent them from traveling to the heart or lungs. These blood clots are supposed to eventually resolve themselves, which prevents potentially fatal blood clot attacks.

However, due to severe IVC filter risks associated with long term use the FDA advises that retrievable filters should be removed soon after the blood clots are resolved.

Kathryn alleges she suffered serious long term health complications due to the defective nature of Bard’s vena cava filter, and opted to file legal action soon after discovering other patients suffered similar experiences.

Overview of IVC Filter Complications

Due to the nature of their treatment mechanism, IVC filters are often prescribed to patients who cannot be prescribed anticoagulant treatment. While there are permanent placement models available, many patients opt for the retrievable models that are supposed to be removed soon after the blood clot is resolved.

The FDA warned that long term use of these devices significantly increase the likelihood of IVC filter complications, with the agency releasing a warning in 2010. During this warning, the FDA stated that it had received 921 IVC filter injury reports since 2005 including instances of:

• 328 reports of IVC Filter Migration
• 146 reports of IVC Filter Component Detachment
• 70 reports of IVC Filter Perforation of Inferior Vena Cava
• 56 reports of IVC Filter Fracture

Each of these complications can make removing the IVC filter difficult, especially in cases where the device migrates closer to the heart.

The FDA later stated that retrievable IVC filters should be removed between 29 to 54 days after implantation in May 2014, emphasizing these devices should only be used on a short term basis.

Kathryn alleges these IVC filter risks were not mentioned on the product’s warning label or other marketing materials, which allegedly prevented her from making an informed decision regarding her health. At all times relevant, Kathryn says she and her physician relied on the marketing materials and product information provided by C.R. Bard.

Kathryn’s IVC filter lawsuit is joining MDL No. 2641, where it will join other claims alleging similar injuries. Kathryn is seeking a multitude of damages in her IVC filter lawsuit including counts of negligence and failure to warn.

This IVC Filter Lawsuit is Case No. 2:19-cv-00539-DGC, in the U.S. District Court of Arizona.