The plaintiff sustained $2 million worth of harm after the Bard G2 device broke apart inside her inferior vena cava. The IVC filter lawsuit totaled $3.6 million in damages, Bard was found responsible for 80 percent of the IVC filter complications.
The other 20 percent of fault was attributed to a radiologist who failed to notate a detached part of the plaintiff’s filter from an X-ray in 2009. She later needed open-heart surgery to combat the IVC filter complications she sustained.
Did Bard Ignore Safety Concerns Linked to at least 27 Deaths?
Back in 2013, NBC News investigated the safety of their IVC filters and reported IVC filter complications. One former company insider says she raised questions about the device, but her complaints were dismissed.
Bard unsuccessfully tried to argue that the surgeon who performed open-heart surgery on the plaintiff in 2014 to retrieve the pieces was responsible for her injuries.
IVC devices are intended to prevent a pulmonary embolism from manifesting by catching blood clots migrating towards the heart or lungs. They are implanted in the inferior vena cava, the largest vein that carries deoxygenated blood to those regions.
The filters have been known to break off or fracture inside the body, which can result in major life-threatening IVC complications for those affected. That is precisely what happened to this particular plaintiff and thousands of others who have filed IVC filter lawsuits.
There are over 3,600 plaintiffs involved in the MDL (multi-district litigation) under U.S. District Judge David Campbell. Within weeks of this trial, another IVC filter lawsuit will focus its attention on Bard’s fourth-generation IVC filter called the Eclipse IVC filter.
Bard manufactured G2 IVC filters under Section 510(k) of the Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act, which allows for a device similar to one already approved by the FDA to go on the market without clinical trials. Bard previously manufactured their Recovery IVC device which is what G2 was based off of. However, Recovery also faced scrutiny for similar IVC filter complications.
It was alleged that Bard received reports indicating IVC complications from the G2 but went ahead with production of the device. “The simple fix was there,” said one of the attorneys involved in this particular case.
Bard’s lawyer, Richard North Jr., asked the jury to evaluate the potentiality for a ripple effect on medical care when making their verdict. “The one thing I submit to you we don’t want to do is deprive physicians of the tools they need,” he said.
A member of Bard’s associate general counsel, Greg Dadika, remarked they believe the devices are lifesaving and that, “the benefits far outweigh the risks.”
After the verdict, the plaintiffs lawyer said, “Despite the fact that Bard was able to get in every ounce of FDA-related evidence, the jury was still able to see through that…[Bard] implied that the FDA blessed everything that they did.”
IVC Filter Complications
Thousands of blood clot / vena cava filter patients have reported serious IVC filter complications, including:
- Venous access site complications
- Filter placement malposition
- Defective filter deployment
- Device migration
- Filter fracture
- IVC perforation
- Pulmonary embolism
- Device infection
- Retrieval complications
- Fracture of the IVC filter
- Internal bleeding
- Cardiac or pericardial tamponade
- Hematoma or nerve injury at the puncture site
- Chest pain
- Respiratory distress
Do you have an IVC filter lawsuit?
If you have suffered from any IVC filter complications, our lawyers would like to speak with you. To learn more about us and our involvement in this litigation, please contact us by using the form below or by dialing (800) 279-6386. We would be honored to speak with you and will respond promptly to every inquiry we receive.