The lawsuit was filed by Jessica D., a woman from Mississippi who was injured by the G2® Inferior Vena Cava Filter (“IVC Filter”) manufactured by C.R. Bard.
The IVC Filter was surgically implanted in her vein on March 23, 2009 for the purpose of preventing a life-threatening pulmonary embolism (blood clot in the lungs). Unfortunately, the plaintiff was severely injured by the G2 IVC Filter.
G2 is a 2nd-generation IVC Filter that was introduced in 2005 as a replacement for C.R. Bard’s 1st-generation Recovery® IVC Filter, which was pulled off the market without a recall after an internal study raised concerns about increased rates of fracture and migration.
The G2 was approved with a 510(k) application citing the Recovery as its “substantially equivalent” predecessor, allowing C.R. Bard to sell the G2 without conducting clinical trials of its safety.
The G2 was soon linked to many of the same risks as the Recovery, which was not surprising because the two filters had nearly identical designs.
Lawyers say C.R. Bard knew — or should have known — that both the Recovery and G2 were defective, but chose to continue selling them instead of issuing warnings about side effects.
In 2010, the same year C.R. Bard withdrew the G2 from the market, a study estimated a 12-25% fracture-risk for the G2 and Recovery. In two patients, broken pieces of the G2 IVC filter got stuck in a vital organ. The researchers concluded:
The Bard Recovery and Bard G2 filters had high prevalences of fracture and embolization, with potentially life-threatening sequelae.”
Four years later, a much larger study focused squarely on the fracture-risk associated with the G2 IVC Filter. Out of 829 patients with the G2, experts estimated that 38% would fracture within 5 years — almost identical to the 40% 5.5-year fracture-risk associated with the Recovery IVC filter.
Lawyers accuse C.R. Bard of downplaying these serious safety risks and failing to adequately study the G2 IVC filter for complications.
The lawsuit was filed on May 26, 2017 in the U.S. District Court for the District of Arizona — Case 2:17-cv001634.
Over 1,850 other IVC filter lawsuits are now pending against C.R. Bard in Multi-District Litigation (MDL No. 2641) — In Re: Bard IVC Filters Products Liability Litigation.
The plaintiff is represented by Ben C. Martin of The Law Offices of Ben C. Martin in Dallas, Texas. He a trial attorney who serves on the plaintiffs’ steering committee of the Bard IVC Filter MDL.