Another patient who alleges she suffered due to IVC filter insertion has filed a lawsuit, joining the growing MDL against makers of these cage like devices.

New plaintiff Penny G. says that her IVC filter caused her serious and disabling injuries and that the manufacturer of this device, C.R. Bard, is responsible for the injuries that she sustained.

The plaintiff says that her IVC filter insertion procedure occurred in Nevada, but at the time of the implantation procedure, she was not aware of the risk of severe and disabling impacts. She says in her lawsuit that the product was implanted in December 2013.

She has filed a lawsuit alleging numerous different counts against C.R. Bard, including failure to warn, breach of express and implied warranty, negligent misrepresentation, negligence in manufacturing, negligence in design, strict product liability for design defects, manufacturing defects, failure to warn and fraudulent concealment.

In fact, numerous patients have come forward to argue that they have suffered after IVC filter insertion. These complaints about IVC filter insertion were consolidated into multidistrict litigation (MDL) recently. The MDL says that Bard’s IVC retrievable filter product line contains numerous defects that exposes patients to risks and problems.

The MDL has been filed by patients or by their loved ones who were injured or even died as a result of receiving a Bard IVC filter. Many of these plaintiffs allege that they have suffered continuous damages and injuries, including pain and suffering, wrongful death of a spouse, child or parent, bodily injuries, impairment, scaring, dismemberment, disfigurement, emotional and psychological trauma, loss of consortium, diminished capacity, anxiety, past and future medical expenses, lost earning capacity, and more.

The IVC filter lawsuits hinge on similar allegations that plaintiffs were not informed about the dangers of these devices prior to having them implanted. Many of the plaintiffs assumed that the devices would help them but allegedly began to experience painful side effects shortly after implantation.

Some of these patients also report challenges having the filters removed, particularly if the filters had begun to breakdown inside the body. Since each patient’s experience might be different, the symptoms representing filter fracture might lead to pain in various parts of the body.

IVC filter plaintiffs argue that the manufacturer did not do enough to warn the medical community or the public about the dangers of these devices.

Patients who go through IVC filter insertion should be aware of any sudden changes in their medical condition or unexplained pain in their bodies after the surgery. Removal could be complicated by the fracture of the device, making the risk of post-surgical symptoms more common for patients having the IVC device taken out.

This IVC Filter Lawsuit is Case No. 2:18-cv-04079-DGC, filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Arizona.