Bard G2 IVC Filter Lawsuit Filed After Unsuccessful Surgery to Remove

A Florida woman has filed a product liability lawsuit against C.R. Bard, after doctors were unable to remove one of the medical device manufacturer’s inferior vena cava (IVC) filters that migrated into the vein leading to her kidneys. 

The complaint (PDF) was filed by Lessie Tillman in the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Florida on March 1, alleging that the Bard G2 IVC filter is defective and unreasonably dangerous.

The Bard G2 is an inferior vena cava (IVC) filter used for individuals who may be at risk for a pulmonary embolism, but for whom an anticoagulant has been ineffective or is contraindicated. The small, spider-like device contains a number of legs or struts that extend out to catch blood clots that may break free elsewhere in the body, such as the deep veins of the legs.

Tillman indicates that her doctors implanted a Bard G2 IVC filter in February 2008, and discovered in March 2009 that it had migrated to the left renal vein.

Doctors unsuccessfully attempted to surgically remove the IVC filter, so Tillman indicates that she has been left with permanent injuries and disability, as well as the need for ongoing medical monitoring to check on the Bard G2 Filter and make sure it does not further damage her surrounding anatomy.

According to allegations raised in the Bard G2 IVC filter lawsuit, the manufacturer failed to adequately research the product or provide warnings about the high rate of fracture, migration and perforation of the vena cava wall that may occur once it is implanted in the body.

The complaint charges C.R. Bard with negligence, failure to warn, design and manufacturing a defective medical device, breach of warranty and negligent misrepresentation.

Complications and Problems with Bard IVC Filters

Unlike traditional IVC filters, the Bard G2 filter was designed so that it can be removed once the threat of a pulmonary embolism has passed.  However, in many cases physicians have allow the devices to remain in place, which may increase the risk of complications with the IVC filter, where the struts may fracture, perforate the vena cava or allow the device to migrate to other areas of the body, such as the heart or lungs.

In recent years, a number of individuals have filed similar lawsuits over the Bard G2 filter, as well as the similar Bard Recovery filter, which is an earlier version.  The complaints allege that Bard failed to adequately warn about the risks associated with leaving the Recovery or G2 filters in place once the threat of a pulmonary embolism has passed.

A study published in August 2010 in the Archives of Internal Medicine found that the failure rate for the Bard G2 filter was about 12%. The Bard Recovery suffered from a much higher 25% failure rate.

Tillman’s lawsuit seeks both compensatory and punitive damages.