Skip to Content
Matthews & Associates Matthews & Associates

Philadelphia IVC Filter Case Filed

Timely Insights on Laws, Issues and New Developements

ivc_filterMatthews & Associates, along with two other law  firms, filed an IVC filter case in August 2015 in Philadelphia for a Pennsylvania woman. The petition alleges Lezlie Saviour suffers permanent injury from having been implanted with a blood clot filter made by New Jersey-based C.R. Bard.

Lezlie Saviour vs. C.R. Bard was filed August 21, 2015.  S. William Stavropoulos, M.D., is also named in the complaint.

General Factual Allegations

General factual allegations include:

  • The Defendants failed to conduct any clinical testing, such as animal studies, to determine how the device would function once permanently implanted in the human body.
  • Defendants knew and/or should have known that the G2 Filter had a high rate of fracture, migration, and excessive tilting and perforation of the vena cava wall once implanted in the human body.
  • Defendants knew and should have known that these risks for the G2 Filter were and are substantially higher than other similar devices.

The Recovery Filter

The petition further states that almost immediately after the Recovery filter hit the market, “reports began to surface regarding failures of the device; including reports of device fracture, migration and excessive tilting, causing injury to the patients in whom the device was implanted. . . within the first year of the full release of the Recovery Filter, the Bard Defendants received numerous Adverse Events Reports regarding device failures, including nine (9) reports of Recovery Filter associated patient death.

“Multiple studies have reported and established the Recovery Filter to have a fracture and migration rate ranging from 21% to 31.7%. . . . shards of the device can travel to the heart, lungs or other organs, causing injury and death.  Shards can also embed themselves so that they become too dangerous to remove, thus exposing the patient to a lifetime of future risk.

Defects inherent in the Recovery filter make the device more susceptible to failure than other permanent and optional retrieval IVC filters, says the petition.

Bard knew Defects, Failures, Dangers

The petition further claims that Bard Defendants had knowledge of dangers presented by the G2 Filter, yet consciously failed to act reasonably to warn or otherwise inform the Plaintiff, her physicians, or the public at large, and/or recall the G2 Filter form the market in a timely and safe fashion.

Punitive Damages Requested

The plaintiff is asking for punitive damages under the allegation that Bard acted in “willful, wanton, gross manner, and in total disregard for the health and safety of the users or consumers of its G2 Filter, including the Plaintiff.” The petition alleges Bard acted to serve company interests, “consciously” pursuing a course of conduct knowing that such conduct created a substantial risk of significant harm.

Device not Retrievable

The petition further alleges that the device was represented by Bard and the implanting doctor to be retrievable. The device is meant to be removed after the patient’s risk of thrombosis passes. The petition states that “despite the diminishment of Plaintiff’s risk of thrombosis, and despite her reinstitution of anticoagulation therapy following childbirth, Defendant Stavropoulos failed to follow up with the Plaintiff to monitor, assess or remove the G2 Filter.”

Plaintiff’s Injuries alleged

The petition says that after the plaintiff experienced shortness of breath, pelvic and abdominal pain and sought emergency treatment, subsequent imaging studies in Oct. 2014 “demonstrated that the tip of the G2 filter was embedded in Plaintiff’s inferior vena cave, and that the device had also fractured into as many as six (6) pieces.” As a result, says the petition, the plaintiff was “caused to undergo emergent medical treatment, including surgical intervention in an attempt to retrieve the fractured G2 Filter and its migrated fragments.”

A further result of the G2 filter failure, says the complaint, is that the plaintiff has “incurred significant medical expenses and has endured extreme pain and suffering, mental anguish, loss of enjoyment of life, and other losses, some of which are permanent in nature.”

The plaintiff’s attorneys allege that two fragments of the G2 filter remain in the woman’s body, consequently requiring her to attend regular doctor visits to undergo imaging studies to monitor the loose fragments.

Philadelphia IVC Filter Case Filed

The petition lists eight counts against Bard and the implanting doctor:

I. Negligence (Bard)
II. Medical Negligence/Malpractice (Defendant Stavropoulos)
III. Lack of Informed Consent (Stavropoulos)
IV. Strict Products Liability-Failure to Warn (Bard)
V. Strict Products Liability-Design Defect (Bard)
VI. Strict Products Liability-Manufacturing Defect (Bard)
VII. Breach of Implied Warranty of Merchantability (Bard)
VIII. Negligent Misrepresentation (Bard)

Logo Box 2012 downsizedRelated

  • No Proof IVC Filters Help
  • Bard IVC Filter Lawsuit
  • Cook Blood Clot Filter Cases

by Matthews & Associates

Share To:

Nationwide Legal Representation

  • Please enter your first name.
  • Please enter your last name.
  • Please enter your phone number.
    This isn't a valid phone number.
  • Please enter your email address.
    This isn't a valid email address.
  • Please make a selection.
  • Please enter a message.
  • By submitting, you agree to be contacted about your request & other information using automated technology. Message frequency varies. Msg & data rates may apply. Text STOP to cancel. Acceptable Use Policy
Locations (By Appt. Only)
  • Houston, TX - Principal Office
    2905 Sackett St.
    Houston, TX 77098
    Map & Directions
  • New York, NY
  • Salinas, CA
Follow Us