A Mississippi woman filed a Bard IVC filter case in U.S. District Court in the Northern District of Mississippi, Oxford Division. Tonya Munson’s case against C.R. Bard was originally filed Dec. 31, 2014. (See: Munson v. Bard.) The plaintiff is from Sara, Mississippi, in Tate County.
No Clinical Testing
Ms. Munson was implanted with a Bard IVC filter system in April 2006. Prior to that time, the complaint states, among many charges, that Bard failed to conduct any clinical testing to see how the device would function once it were implanted in the human body; that the company knew or should have known that the filter had a high rate of fracture, migration and excessive tilting; that such failures exposed patients to serious injuries that include death, cardiac arrhythmia, severe and persistent pain, perforation of tissues, vessels, organs; and was potentially impossible to remove.
First cause of action: Negligence
The first cause of action for the case was negligence. The complaint alleges:
“Plaintiff discovered that the G2 Filter System migrated and perforated her aorta and L4 vertebrae on or about January 4, 2012. Plaintiff was caused to undergo medical treatment as a result of the failure of the G2 Filter System. Plaintiff has incurred significant medical expenses and has endured extreme pain and suffering, loss of enjoyment of life, and other losses, some of which are permanent in nature. As a result of the failure of the G2 Filter System, Plaintiff has become impaired and her ability to earn wages has diminished, and will remain so in the future.”
The defective system remains in Ms. Munson, says the petition,which requires repeated doctor visits and imaging studies.
The lawsuit petition further alleges “fraudulent concealment,” and denies that the defendants have a legitimate legal claim for barring the case due to any statute of limitations issues. It states:
“Defendants are estopped from relying on the statute of limitations defense because Defendants failed to timely disclose, among other things, facts evidencing the defective and unreasonably dangerous nature of the Recovery and G2 Filter Systems.”
The complaint further accuses Defendants of purposeful conduct “which Defendants must have realized was dangerous, heedless and reckless, without regard to the consequences or the rights and safety of Plaintiff.”
Known or Should Have Known
The complaint says Defendants knew or should have known the G2 filter was designed and manufactured in such a manner so as to:
a. present an unreasonable risk of fracture of portions of the device.
b. risk migration of the device and/or portions of the device and/or,
c. risk the device tilting and/or perforating the vena cava wall and/or,
d. have unreasonable and insufficient strength or structural integrity to withstand normal placement in the human body.
Unsafe and Unreasonably Dangerous
The petition further claims that “Defendants placed the G2 Filter into the stream of commerce in a defective, unsafe, and unreasonably dangerous condition, (and) breached their implied warranty because their G2 Filter was not fit for its intended purpose.”
Mississippi IVC Filter Case Filed
Among more charges, the complaint further alleges defendant C.R. Bard “failed to warn of material facts regarding the safety and efficacy of the G2 filter, and further failed to adequately provide instructions on the safe and proper use of the device.”
The case is No. 3:14-CV-279-MPM-SAA.
- IVC Filter Lawsuit
- Blood Clot Filter Lawsuit
- No Evidence Blood Clot Filters Help
- MDL Court for Blood Clot Filter Cases
by Matthews & Associates