Bard G2 IVC Filter Fractured and Strut Lodged in Missouri Woman’s Back, Lawsuit Alleges

As a growing number of IVC filter lawsuits continue to be filed by individuals throughout the U.S., one of the latest cases indicates that a Missouri woman suffered severe injuries when a strut on a Bard G2 filter fractured and lodged in her back.

The complaint (PDF) was filed by Ava Langford in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri on November 24, indicating a Bard G2 inferior vena cava (IVC) filter implanted to prevent a pulmonary embolism failed and fractured.

The problems were discovered when the IVC filter was removed, and doctors found that at least one of the struts on the filter fractured and traveled to her back. As a result of the injury, Langford indicates that she has incurred significant medical expenses and has endured pain, suffering, loss of enjoyment of life, permanent disability and other damages.

Learn More About

IVC Filter Lawsuits

Design Problems with Certain IVC Filters Linked to Severe Injuries. Lawsuits Reviewed Nationwide.

Learn More About this Lawsuit See If You Qualify For Compensation

The Bard G2 IVC filter is a small, spider-like device implanted into the inferior vena cava to “catch” blood clots that may break free from the deep veins of the body, and prevent them from traveling to the lungs. The filter is a second generation design, based on the Bard Recovery filter, both of which are designed to be retrieved once the risk of a pulmonary embolism has passed.

Bard IVC Filter Failures and Risks

A number of similar Bard G2 filter lawsuits and Bard Recovery Filter lawsuits have been filed by individuals who allege that the devices are prone to puncture the vein, move out of position or fracture, potentially sending small pieces to the heart or lungs.

“Data establishes that the failure rates of the Recovery Filter and G2 Filter are/were exceedingly higher than the rate that [Bard defendants] have in the past, and currently continue to publish to the medical community and members of the public,” according to allegations presented in Langford’s lawsuit. “Further, [Bard defendants] were aware or should have been aware that the Recovery Filter and G2 Filter have substantially higher failure rates than do other similar products on the market, yet failed to warn consumers of this fact.”

Langford alleges that the G2 filter is defectively designed, despite claims from the manufacturer that it had “enhanced fracture resistance” and “increased migration resistance.” The complaint claims that Bard failed to conduct adequate clinical testing to ensure the device was safe and effective.

“Not surprisingly, the G2 Filter’s design causes it to be of insufficient integrity and strength to withstand normal in vivo body stresses so as to resist fracturing, migrating, tilting, and/or perforating the inferior vena cava,” the lawsuit states. “These manufacturing defects include, but are not limited to, the existence of ‘draw marking’ and circumferential grinding markings on the exterior of the surface of the device. The presence of these draw markings and/or circumferential grinding markings further compromises the structural integrity of the G2 Filter while in vivo.”

The lawsuit presents claims for negligence, failure to warn, defective design, manufacturing defect, breach of warranty, consumer fraud, and loss of consortium on behalf of Langford’s husband, seeking both compensatory and punitive damages.

Langford’s complaint will be transferred into a recently established multidistrict litigation (MDL) for all federal Bard IVC filter lawsuits, which are centralized before U.S. U.S. District Judge David G. Campbell in the District of Arizona for coordinated discovery and pretrial proceedings.

Image Credit: |


Share Your Comments

I authorize the above comments be posted on this page*

Want your comments reviewed by a lawyer?

To have an attorney review your comments and contact you about a potential case, provide your contact information below. This will not be published.

NOTE: Providing information for review by an attorney does not form an attorney-client relationship.

This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.

More Top Stories