Table of contents
- Latest Bard IVC Filter Lawsuit Updates
- August 28, 2023: Ninth Circuit Rules on Common-Benefit Fees
- July 21, 2021: Dallas Jury Finds Bard Recovery Filter Defective
- April 20, 2021: Court Suggests Remand in MDL 2641
- July 22, 2015: Bard Discloses FDA Warning Letter
- May 6, 2014: FDA Updates IVC Filter Safety Communication
- What Is an IVC Filter?
- Who May Be Affected?
- Reported Injuries or Damages
- Recall and Regulatory Background
- Evidence to Preserve
- Filing Deadlines
- Frequently Asked Questions
- What Kind of Doctor Puts in an IVC Filter?
- Do IVC Filters Have to Be Removed?
- What Does Bard Say About the IVC Filter Lawsuits?
- What Does the Research Say About Bard IVC Filter Lawsuits?
- Is the Cook IVC Filter Lawsuit the Same as the Bard Litigation?
- Was Any Bard IVC Filter Case Dismissed for Missing a Deadline?
Lawsuits claim that Bard IVC filters tilted, broke, moved or pierced the vein wall in some patients. The cases involve the Recovery, G2, G2X, Eclipse, Meridian and Denali filters made by C.R. Bard.
The federal cases were joined as MDL No. 2641 in the District of Arizona. They are individual injury cases, and no certified class action is known.
Plaintiffs allege design defects and a failure to warn, and Bard disputes the allegations. Group settlements covered thousands of cases, and the court suggested remand of unsettled cases in April 2021.
Latest Bard IVC Filter Lawsuit Updates
August 28, 2023: Ninth Circuit Rules on Common-Benefit Fees
Reuters reported a ruling by the Ninth Circuit on common-benefit fees [1]. The court held that lawyer Ben Martin of Ben Martin Law Group must pay them in about 300 cases he settled outside the MDL.
The ruling came in In re Bard IVC Filters Product Liability Litigation. It rests on a participation agreement that Martin signed with lead counsel.
July 21, 2021: Dallas Jury Finds Bard Recovery Filter Defective
A federal jury in Dallas found that the Bard Recovery IVC filter was defective after it fractured, in the case of plaintiff Debra Branch. The Dallas Morning News reported that the jury awarded $386,250 in damages [2].
The jury did not find Bard negligent in its warning about the device. Bard said it was exploring appeals options. The verdict applies to this one case.
April 20, 2021: Court Suggests Remand in MDL 2641
The U.S. District Court for the District of Arizona entered a final order suggesting remand and transfer in MDL 2641 on April 20, 2021. An amended final order followed on April 25, 2021.
July 22, 2015: Bard Discloses FDA Warning Letter
BioSpace reported that C.R. Bard disclosed an FDA warning letter dated July 12 [3]. The letter covered plants in Glens Falls, New York and Tempe, Arizona.
The letter covers filter retrieval devices rather than the filters. It affects two models of Bard’s Recovery cone removal systems.
May 6, 2014: FDA Updates IVC Filter Safety Communication
Endovascular Today reported that the FDA updated its safety communication on removing retrievable IVC filters [4]. The update revises an initial communication from August 2010.
The update contains no new safety concerns. It also adds recent research and postmarket studies to the FDA’s earlier guidance on retrievable filters.
What Is an IVC Filter?
According to Johns Hopkins Medicine, an inferior vena cava (IVC) filter is “a small device that can stop blood clots from going up into the lungs” [5].
The IVC is “a large vein in the middle of your body.” Doctors put the filter in during a short procedure. It may be left in place permanently or, in some cases, removed after a period of time.
Who May Be Affected?
People who had a Bard Recovery, G2, G2X, Eclipse, Meridian or Denali IVC filter placed may be affected. Doctors usually place a filter to guard against clots reaching the lungs when blood thinners are unsafe or not enough.
The FDA says the problems reported with these filters may be related to how long a filter has been implanted. Whether you may qualify depends on your own facts, and a legal review looks at them.
Reported Injuries or Damages
Reported problems with IVC filters include tilt, fracture, migration and perforation of the IVC wall. Reports also describe embolization of the filter or its fragments to the heart or lungs, and difficulty removing the device.
The FDA lists lower limb deep vein thrombosis and IVC occlusion as other known long-term risks. These reports do not prove that a filter caused any one injury.
In Booker v. C.R. Bard, a 2022 analysis in the Journal of Vascular Surgery: Venous and Lymphatic Disorders (JVS-Venous) describes a fractured filter strut that reached the plaintiff’s right atrium and required open heart surgery [6].
Recall and Regulatory Background
The FDA issued its first safety communication on retrievable IVC filters in August 2010. It asks doctors to consider removing a retrievable filter once protection from pulmonary embolism is no longer needed.
Evidence to Preserve
Keep records that show which filter you received and what happened afterward:
- Implant records showing the filter brand and model, the implant date and the hospital.
- The implant card or lot number that came with the filter, if you still have it.
- Imaging and radiology reports, including any scans that show the filter’s position or damage.
- Records of any attempt to remove the filter, including notes from the procedure.
- Medical bills and a written record of your symptoms, with dates for each one.
- Messages with your doctor or with the company about the filter.
Filing Deadlines
Filing deadlines for IVC filter injury claims come from state law and depend on where you live and when you learned the filter caused harm. A late claim can be dismissed. Talk with a lawyer promptly.
Frequently Asked Questions
What Kind of Doctor Puts in an IVC Filter?
An interventional radiologist puts in an IVC filter, working with a team of specialized nurses. The doctor places the filter through a small incision in a vein in the groin or neck. The procedure usually takes about an hour.
Do IVC Filters Have to Be Removed?
Not every IVC filter has to be removed. An FDA model suggested that once a patient’s clot risk has passed, removal begins to be favored between 29 and 54 days after implantation. Ask the treating doctor when removal makes sense.
What Does Bard Say About the IVC Filter Lawsuits?
Bard says in response to the IVC filter lawsuits that its filters are FDA-cleared. It says complication rates are well below Society of Interventional Radiology guidelines, a company spokesman told The Dallas Morning News.
What Does the Research Say About Bard IVC Filter Lawsuits?
Research on Bard IVC filter lawsuits includes the 2022 JVS-Venous analysis. Of 12 bellwether cases from the Cook and Bard MDLs decided by December 2020, 11 (91.7%) were ruled for the defendant. Booker v. C.R. Bard was the one plaintiff win.
Is the Cook IVC Filter Lawsuit the Same as the Bard Litigation?
No, the Cook IVC filter lawsuit is separate from the Bard IVC filter litigation. Cook filters are in MDL No. 2570 in the Southern District of Indiana, while Bard filters are in a different MDL in the District of Arizona.
Was Any Bard IVC Filter Case Dismissed for Missing a Deadline?
Yes, a Bard IVC filter case was dismissed over a deadline. Kruse v. C.R. Bard was dismissed because the plaintiff’s product liability claim exceeded the home state’s statute of limitations. Gage v. Cook Medical was dismissed for the same reason.