A man from Florida is alleging serious injuries from IVC filter migration, which he says was allegedly caused by the defective nature of the G2 Vena Cava Filter.

The man recently opted to file legal action against C.R. Bard, alleging the company failed to warn him against the possibility of IVC filter migration and how it could severely impact his cardiovascular health.

Plaintiff Howard B. alleges the IVC filter migration has caused serious damage to the inferior vena cava (IVC), which is the largest vein in the human body. IVC filters are small cage-like devices that work by stopping blood clots forming in the legs or pelvis from traveling to the heart and lungs.

After the blood clots resolve themselves, retrievable IVC filters are supposed to be removed to avoid serious device complications.

IVC Filter Use

The G2 Vena Cava Filter and other IVC filters are typically prescribed to patients who cannot be prescribed anticoagulant treatment, with Bard stating the device is supposed to be safe and reliable for blood clot treatment and prevention.

With this in mind, Howard says he had the G2 Vena Cava Filter implanted on Dec. 4, 2006. He reportedly suffered serious complications related to IVC filter migration soon after.

According to the IVC filter lawsuit, Howard suffers from the effects of IVC filter perforation and migration, with several struts of the filter having perforated the inferior vena cava and another strut perforating the renal vein. These complications make removing the IVC filter much riskier, and Howard is forced to contend and adapt to the long lasting effects.

Howard opted to file this IVC filter lawsuit after discovering numerous other patients had also suffered serious device complications from these products. Many of these individuals joined a growing multidistrict litigation (MDL) for IVC filter issues.

Overview of IVC Filter Complications

The FDA first warned the public against IVC filter migration and other complications in 2010, stating it had received 921 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

In the same warning, the FDA also warned that these IVC complications were much more likely when the devices were left in patients on a long term basis.

The FDA repeatedly stressed the importance of short term use for IVC filters, and that they should be removed as soon as possible. The FDA issued an updated warning in May 2014, which stated the IVC filter should generally be removed between 29 to 54 days after implantation.

Even though these IVC filter complications can be devastating to patients, Bard and other manufacturers allegedly failed to warn patients. At all times relevant, Howard says he relied on the product information and marketing materials provided by C.R. Bard.

Howard states he would not have agreed to have the G2 Vena Cava Filter implanted, if he had been aware of potential IVC filter migration. His IVC filter lawsuit is joining MDL No. 2641, where it will stand alongside other claims alleging similar injuries from IVC filter migration.

This IVC Filter Lawsuit is Case No. 2:18-cv-04252-DGC, in the U.S. District Court of Arizona.