Lawsuits filed over Bard IVC filters claim the blood clot filter device can migrate, perforate, and break up into fragments which can travel to vital organs and lead to catastrophic injuries.
3,500 Bard IVC Filter Lawsuits
More than 3,500 plaintiffs have had their Bard IVC filter lawsuits consolidated in the C.R. Bard MDL litigation venue established in Phoenix. Since August 2015, all personal injury and product liability lawsuits filed against Bard in the federal court system have been centralized. U.S. District Judge David Campbell presides in the District of Arizona as part of the multidistrict litigation.
The first scheduled trial in any mass tort litigation is informally considered by legal scholars to be a bellwether trial. These first trials generally set the tone for a given litigation. They can often help determine the merits of not just one plaintiff’s case but all plaintiffs’ cases. The defense goal in these cases is to have them dismissed outright, if possible, while plaintiffs work to prove to a jury that the product in question is defective and fails to pass muster in any fair basic cost-benefit analysis.
Defendants in these cases will usually attempt to extol the virtues of their beleaguered device and will further attempt to show it as not only necessary but superior to other available options at the time of implant. The Plaintiffs side, by contrast, will work to show the device is perhaps entirely unnecessary and/or unreasonably dangerous. They will also try to prove to the jury that alternative treatments were available which were both safer and better than the device which was used.
In the first Bard IVC filter lawsuit scheduled for next month, a woman was implanted with a C.R. Bard G2 IVC filter in June 2007. She alleges that she suffered personal injuries as a result.
What is an IVC filter?
IVC filters, or inferior vena cava filters, are made to trap or filter blood clots. They are tiny, umbrella-like devices placed in the inferior vena cava – the vein returning blood to the heart – to prevent blood clots in the leg from traveling to the heart, lungs, or even the brain.
Blood Thinners vs. IVC Filters
Blood thinners or anticoagulants are usually the first, best treatment option for blood clots in the leg. Blood thinners, however, are contra-indicated for some people. A person with a pre-existing bleeding problem may not be able to take a blood thinner. That unlucky person might be implanted with an IVC filter.
IVC Filters Meant for Temporary Use
IVC filters are meant to be implanted only for temporary use. Once the threat of a clot has passed, they are supposed to be removed. In reality, however, most retrievable IVC filters are never retrieved, or they are not retrieved until after the safe removal window recommended by the FDA has passed.
IVC Filter Retrieval Problems
Some IVC filters cannot be retrieved at all. Sometimes the filter embeds in the vein wall, causing severe risk of injury. In several cases, the IVC filter has been found to embed and perforate the wall of the inferior vena cava. The filter can also tilt or break free from the insertion point and migrate to the heart and lungs. The brittle spider-legged struts of the IVC filter have been found to snap off and embolize or migrate into vital organs.
First Bard IVC Lawsuit Trial
Judge Campbell has ordered that the first Bard IVC filter bellwether trial will be conducted in two phases. The first will be a determination of liability, compensatory damages, and possible punitive damages. The second phase will determine the amount of any possible punitive damages.
IVC Filter Injury Lawsuits
If you have been implanted with a troublesome IVC filter (a Bard Recovery, G2, Cook Celect, Gunther Tulip, Cordis Optease, or Trapease) and you have suffered IVC filter failure or injuries by embedment, migration or embolization requiring emergency care or surgery, contact an IVC filter attorney today. Call 713-522-5250 or email Matthews & Associates Law Firm for a free legal consultation. We are handling IVC filter lawsuits in all 50 states and Puerto Rico.