Bard IVC Filter Failure Allegations Attorneys: Resource4thePeople Reports Complimentary Consultations Will Be Available over the Holidays

Share Article

National network of lawyers will continue offer of these consultations through Christmas and New Year’s Day. Allegations being reviewed include migrations, perforation, filter fracture and other problems linked by FDA to life-threatening health problems.

Resource4thePeople announced today that its national network of attorneys will be available over the upcoming holiday season to consumers inquiring about health concerns raised by the Food and Drug Administration* involving interior vena cava (IVC) filters marketed by C.R. Bard and other manufacturers.

“We are proud to announce that our policy of providing free consultations to consumers inquiring about these allegations and their legal options to seek compensation will not be interrupted by the holiday season,” said Resource4thePeople.

“We have been seeing a steady increase in the number of consumers inquiring about IVC filter side effects, particularly in connection with the health advisory that was issued by the FDA.”

Resource4thePeople notes that the FDA issued the health advisory about IVC filters on Aug. 9, 2010 after agency officials said that they had received numerous reports of adverse events in connection with the device.

Here is part of the FDA warning:

“Since 2005, the FDA has received 921 device adverse event reports involving IVC filters, of which 328 involved device migration, 146 involved embolizations (detachment of device components), 70 involved perforation of the IVC, and 56 involved filter fracture. Some of these events led to adverse clinical outcomes in patients. These types of events may be related to a retrievable filter remaining in the body for long periods of time, beyond the time when the risk of pulmonary embolism (PE) has subsided.

“The FDA is concerned that these retrievable IVC filters, intended for short-term placement, are not always removed once a patient’s risk for PE subsides. Known long term risks associated with IVC filters include but are not limited to lower limb deep vein thrombosis (DVT), filter fracture, filter migration, filter embolization and IVC perforation.”

Since that warning Resource4thePeople reports that IVC lawsuits have been filed across the country.

Among the latest IVC filter lawsuits was one** filed in U.S. District Court for the Western District of Texas by a woman who had a G2 filter implanted into her inferior vena cava to protect her from contraindications to anticoagulants.

"This is another case in which a consumer is alleging that the Bard IVC filter was defectively designed and simply not strong enough to perform the task for which it was designed," said Resource4thePeople.

"The court file shows that this woman claims that as a result of the injuries she claims to have suffered the woman is asking for a jury trial at which she will seek damages for medical expenses, pain and suffering, mental anguish, physical impairment, disfigurement, economic losses, court costs, and interest."

The Texas woman who recently filed suit claims that the Bard G2 filter failed after it was implanted in her and 2007 and alleges that the filter's arms have penetrated her inferior vena cava walls and cannot be safely removed unless she undergoes major invasive surgery.

Another Texas case*** was filed by another woman who claims a Bard IVC was defectively designed, failed after being implanted in her body and migrated to her heart, according to the court file.

The woman claims that a Bard G2 filter was implanted in her in 2009 to prevent blood clots but failed and caused her to suffer serious health problems and expenses.

She is seeking a jury trial and damages for medical expenses, pain and suffering, mental anguish, physical impairment, disfigurement, economic losses and other expenses, according to the court file.

Another recent filing of a Bard IVC filter lawsuit was made on behalf of a New York woman who is claiming in her lawsuit that the device was defectively designed, broke and caused her to suffer significant internal injuries.****

The woman is alleging the filter was implanted to prevent blood clots but broke apart with particles migrating through her body and damaging her internal organs.

IVC filters are medical devices designed to prevent blood clots in patients at risk for a pulmonary embolism in cases in which an anticoagulant is contraindicated or proven ineffective.

The FDA's health warning* reports that serious health problems can occur on these spider-like devices when the legs that extend from it to block clots break off.

What can then occur, according to the FDA, is that these broken parts from the filter may travel to other parts of the body and cause serious problems such as lower limb deep vein thrombosis (DVT), filter fracture, filter migration, filter embolization and IVC perforation.

Resource4thePeople is also announcing that in addition to accepting inquiries from consumers about C.R. Bard filters inquiries about allegations involving other manufacturers also are being reviewed.

The IVCs being added to the list of devices eligible for review by Resource4thePeople attorneys are the Cook Celect, the Cordis OptEase and the ALN IVC filters.

Earlier models identified for review are the C.R. Bard Recovery IVC Filter and G2 IVC Filter, the Braun Tempofilter, the Cook Gunther Tulip and Select and the Rex Medical Option.

Consumers who allegedly suffered any of these medical conditions may contact Resource4thePeople attorneys for a free consultation:

        Permanent or temporary disability
        Additional surgeries
        Deep vein thrombosis
        Perforation or damage to the heart
        Perforation or damage to the lungs
        Perforation or damage to the kidneys
        Perforation or damage to blood vessels
        Bleeding or fluid build-up around the heart
        Erosion into the inferior vena cava
        Migration of the filter
        Filter fracture
        Embolization of broken filter fragments
        Irregular heartbeat

**Arnold et al v C.R. Bard, Case #5:13cv00609, US. District Court for the Western District of Texas
*** Case #1:13cv00633 U.S. District Eastern District of Texas, Beaumont Division, Judge Thad Heartfield
****Case # 2:13-cv-2281, U.S. District Court, Eastern District of New York

Share article on social media or email:

View article via:

Pdf Print

Contact Author

Bill Callahan
+1 858 602-2749
Email >
Visit website