Texas Woman Sues C.R. Bard After IVC Filter Fails, Penetrates Vena Cava Wall

Bard IVC Filter Lawsuit

Written by Faith Anderson on August 14, 2013
Consumer Justice Foundation Seal

Texas Woman Sues C.R. Bard After IVC Filter Fails, Penetrates Vena Cava Wall

A product liability lawsuit has been filed against C.R. Bard over problems with its potentially defective IVC filter.

Medical device maker C.R. Bard faces yet another product liability lawsuit, filed on July 11 on behalf of a Texas woman who suffered a penetrated vena cava when the company’s IVC (inferior vena cava) filter failed and doctors were unable to remove it. The complaint was brought by Robin Arnold and her husband, Felix, in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Texas, and the couple is seeking damages for failure to warn, negligence, manufacturing defects, design defects, negligent misrepresentation, breach of implied warranty and loss of consortium. If you have suffered serious injuries that you believe to be related to a dangerous consumer product, our consumer advocates at the Consumer Justice Foundation can help you get in touch with a knowledgeable product liability lawyer in your area. With an experienced attorney on your side, you may be able to file a claim against the manufacturing company, in order to seek fair and timely reimbursement for your injuries and medical bills.

Risk of IVC Filter Fracture or Failure

C.R. Bard’s G2 filter is an upgraded version of the Bard Recovery filter, which was removed from the market in 2005 amid reports of problems, including a risk of the device fracturing and causing complications. Unlike traditional IVC filters, the Bard G2 and Recovery filters were designed to be removed once the threat of a pulmonary embolism has passed, although some physicians allow the devices to remain in place, which may increase the risk of side effects. The Bard G2 device is one of the two IVC filters marketed by C.R. Bard that have been the subject of a number of lawsuits in recent years, in which plaintiffs claim that the filters failed and that the legs either broke off and migrated to other parts of the body or pierced vital organs or the inferior vena cava.

IVC Filters May Not Be Safe or Effective

Several studies published earlier this year raised serious concerns about Bard’s IVC filters, finding a lack of evidence that the medical devices are effective and a lack of data on their proper use, resulting in physicians being unsure of how and when to safely implant or remove the filters. According to her lawsuit, Arnold received a Bard G2 filter in September 2007, and the device ultimately failed. Unfortunately, the problems weren’t discovered until about July 2011, at which point doctors were unable to safely remove the device. Arnold alleges in her complaint that the arms of the spider-like filter have allegedly penetrated her inferior vena cava walls, causing her to suffer serious pain and loss of enjoyment of life.

Adverse Events Associated With Bard’s IVC Filters

Arnold’s complaint joins a growing number of lawsuits filed against C.R. Bard on behalf of individuals who have experienced similar complications after their IVC filters fractured or failed. Most of the suits were filed following an August 2010 warning by the FDA, which indicated that the agency had received more than 900 reports of adverse events associated with the IVC filters. Of the 900 reports, 328 involved the device breaking free and migrating to other parts of the body, 146 involved components breaking loose from the filter, 70 involved perforation of the inferior vena cava, and 56 involved the filter fracturing. If you believe you have been adversely affected by a potentially defective medical device like C.R. Bard’s IVC filter, consult a reputable attorney in your area to explore your possible compensation options.

Posted Under: Legal, News
Start Claim Now
Do you deserve compensation?

An attorney will review your situation for FREE and help you found out what really went wrong.

How Can We Reach You?

Please Explain Your Situation

By clicking the "Submit" button below, you agree that law firms you are matched with may contact you by telephone even if you are on a federal or state Do Not Call registry. Up to 10 law firms may respond to your request within approximately 2 weeks. In some cases 3 or more firms may respond to your request after 30 days. Use of this site is subject to our Terms of Use.