IVC filters made by Bard and Cook are the subject of product liability lawsuits in federal court. Plaintiffs allege design defects in the filters, and the manufacturers dispute the allegations.
Plaintiffs say the devices can fracture, migrate, tilt or perforate the vena cava, causing serious injury or death. Two federal multidistrict litigations (MDLs) cover these claims.
The Cook MDL, No. 2570, is pending in Indiana. The Bard MDL, No. 2641, closed in Arizona on May 31, 2019, with more than 8,000 cases. Individual jury verdicts have also been reported.
- Case or litigation name: In re Cook Medical, Inc., IVC Filters (MDL No. 2570); In re Bard IVC Filters (MDL No. 2641)
- Defendants: Cook Medical; C. R. Bard, Inc. and Bard Peripheral Vascular, Inc.
- Court and docket number, when available: MDL No. 2570, S.D. Ind. (Cook); No. 2:15-md-02641, D. Ariz. (Bard)
- MDL number, judge, and case count, when an MDL exists: MDL No. 2570 (Cook) pending as of September 2, 2025; MDL No. 2641 (Bard) closed May 31, 2019 after more than 8,000 cases
- Filing date: October 15, 2014 (Cook MDL); August 2015 (Bard MDL)
- Main allegations: Plaintiffs allege design defects make IVC filters fracture, migrate, tilt or perforate the vena cava; the manufacturers dispute this
- Products or people involved: Bard Recovery, G2, G2X, Eclipse, Meridian and Denali filters; Cook filters including the Celect
Table Of Contents
- Latest IVC Filter Lawsuit Updates
- December 3, 2024: TCTMD Reports on Celect Court Records
- August 17, 2023: Seventh Circuit Affirms $3.3 Million Bard Verdict
- September 22, 2021: Court Transfers Alarcon Case in Bard MDL
- April 26, 2021: Court Issues Final Remand Order in Bard MDL
- May 31, 2019: Bard IVC Filter MDL Closes
- October 15, 2014: Panel Creates Cook MDL No. 2570
- What Is an IVC Filter?
- Who May Be Affected?
- Reported Injuries or Damages
- Recall and Regulatory Background
- Evidence to Preserve
- Filing Deadlines
- Potential Compensation
- Frequently Asked Questions
- References
Latest IVC Filter Lawsuit Updates
December 3, 2024: TCTMD Reports on Celect Court Records
TCTMD reported on an Annals of Internal Medicine article by Kushal T. Kadakia and colleagues [1]. The authors reviewed unsealed court records from litigation over the Celect IVC filter made by Cook.
Cook Medical said it disagrees with the authors’ characterization of the data, calling it a litigation-driven representation of a technology that has helped countless patients.
August 17, 2023: Seventh Circuit Affirms $3.3 Million Bard Verdict
A press release by plaintiff counsel announced that a three-judge Seventh Circuit panel ruled a $3.3 million jury verdict against Bard will stand [2]. The case is Johnson v. C.R. Bard Inc., No. 22-2610.
The jury verdict was handed down in June 2021. The release says a CT scan in 2018 showed several pieces of the device had fractured.
September 22, 2021: Court Transfers Alarcon Case in Bard MDL
The District of Arizona issued a transfer order in the Bard MDL for the direct-filed Alarcon case. It sent the case to the district named in her short-form complaint after the Bard MDL ended.
The order also reviews the first two bellwether trials in the Bard MDL, Booker in March 2018 and Jones in May 2018.
April 26, 2021: Court Issues Final Remand Order in Bard MDL
The District of Arizona issued an amended final suggestion of remand and transfer order for the Bard MDL [3]. It states that all remaining cases had settled, been dismissed with prejudice, or would be remanded or transferred.
May 31, 2019: Bard IVC Filter MDL Closes
The Bard IVC filter MDL closed in the District of Arizona with more than 8,000 cases filed. The court describes them as personal injury cases brought against Bard.
October 15, 2014: Panel Creates Cook MDL No. 2570
The Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation issued an order centralizing 27 Cook filter actions from eleven districts in the Southern District of Indiana as MDL No. 2570 [4]. Cook argues perforation and fracture are extremely rare occurrences.
What Is an IVC Filter?
The inferior vena cava, or IVC, is a large vein, according to the District of Arizona order of September 22, 2021 in the Bard MDL [5]. It returns blood to the heart from the lower body.
An IVC filter is a small device implanted in the IVC to catch blood clots before they reach the heart and lungs. The Bard filters are umbrella-shaped devices with multiple limbs fanning out from a cone-shaped head.
Who May Be Affected?
Court records describe people with a Bard or Cook filter who report that it tilted, migrated, fractured or perforated the vena cava. Only an individual legal review can decide whether someone qualifies for a claim.
In one Bard bellwether case, the filter tilted, migrated and fractured, and the plaintiff needed open heart surgery to remove the fractured limbs.
Reported Injuries or Damages
The lawsuits describe fracture, migration, tilt and perforation of the vena cava, with serious injury or death alleged. These are allegations, and the manufacturers dispute them.
TCTMD lists causes of injury cited in lawsuits: deep vein thrombosis, device migration, perforation, fracture, IVC occlusion and pulmonary embolism. These are lawsuit claims, not agency counts.
TCTMD also reports on FDA safety communications from 2010 and 2014. They indicated some adverse events may have resulted from how long the devices were left in place.
TCTMD reports that the SAFE-IVC study, done in conjunction with the FDA, found that only 15% of patients have their filters taken out. Recommendations say to remove them as soon as feasible.
In the same article, Kadakia and colleagues wrote that unsealed court records on the Celect show FDA reviewers identified perforation in 15% of the filters. The company had said its animal studies showed no evidence of perforation.
Recall and Regulatory Background
FDA lists a Class 2 device recall of the Bard Denali IVC filter, terminated on February 1, 2016 [6]. The firm initiated it on March 13, 2015, and FDA posted it on February 1, 2016.
The recall number is Z-0737-2016. It covered product codes DL950J and DL950F. A total of 1,183 units went to Canada only.
The reason was missing contraindications in the instructions for use: uncontrolled sepsis and known hypersensitivity to nickel-titanium alloys. The firm said no customer action was required. A recall does not prove liability.
Evidence to Preserve
Keep these records and items related to the filter and any complications:
- The filter’s manufacturer, model and lot number, from the implant card or the operative report
- Implant and removal records, and scans such as CT or X-rays that show the filter position or a fracture
- Medical records and bills for the treatment of any complications linked to the filter
- Photographs of any retrieved fragments of the filter or the removed device
- A log of your symptoms with dates, so you can show how they changed over time
- Communications with your doctor, hospital or the manufacturer about the filter
- Records of work you missed because of the filter or its complications
Filing Deadlines
Filing deadlines come from state law. They vary with where you live and when the injury or complication and its cause were discovered.
Filing too late can bar a claim altogether, whatever the medical records show. Ask a lawyer soon which deadline applies in your state.
Potential Compensation
Damages that may be claimed include medical expenses, lost income, pain and suffering and sometimes punitive damages, depending on state law.
In Booker v. C. R. Bard, Inc., a March 2018 bellwether trial, a jury returned $2 million in compensatory and $2 million in punitive damages.
Bard was attributed $1.6 million of the compensatory amount after apportionment of fault. Jones v. Bard, a May 2018 bellwether, ended in a defense verdict.
Compensation amounts vary by case. Past results do not guarantee future outcomes. The facts and the medical records in each case shape potential compensation.
Frequently Asked Questions
When Should an IVC Filter Be Removed?
An IVC filter should be removed as soon as feasible, according to TCTMD’s report on current recommendations. Ask your doctor when removal is right for your own filter and your medical situation.
Was the Booker Verdict Appealed?
The Booker verdict in the Bard litigation was appealed, and an appeals court affirmed it. The jury had found for the plaintiff on negligent failure to warn and for the defendants on design defect.
Which IVC Filters Are Named in the Lawsuits?
The IVC filters named in the lawsuits are Bard Recovery, G2, G2X, Eclipse, Meridian and Denali filters, plus Cook filters including the Celect. Court records call the Bard devices retrievable filters, and the Cook MDL centralizes actions over Cook filters.
Which Bard Filter Was in the Jones Trial?
The Jones trial of the Bard Eclipse filter had case number CV-16-00782 in the District of Arizona. It went to a jury trial in May 2018 and ended in a defense verdict.
References
- https://www.tctmd.com/news/ivc-filter-lawsuits-expose-holes-fda-oversight-and-public-communication
- https://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/3-3m-verdict-will-stand-in-case-citing-bards-defective-ivc-blood-clot-filter-301904052.html
- https://www.azd.uscourts.gov/sites/azd/files/15-2641-22042.pdf
- https://www.jpml.uscourts.gov/sites/jpml/files/MDL-2570-Initial_Transfer-10-14.pdf
- https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/USCOURTS-azd-2_15-md-02641/pdf/USCOURTS-azd-2_15-md-02641-104.pdf
- https://www.accessdata.fda.gov/scripts/cdrh/cfdocs/cfres/res.cfm?id=142563