The Legal Examiner The Legal Examiner The Legal Examiner search feed instagram google-plus avvo phone envelope checkmark mail-reply spinner error close
Skip to main content
| Chaffin Luhana LLP

Another federally filed Bard IVC filter lawsuit is likely to be headed to the District of Arizona, where all Bard IVC filter lawsuits were centralized in August of 2015.

This time, the case was filed by a Mississippi man who brings claims against Bard IVC filter manufacturer C. R. Bard. His case was originally filed in the Northern District of Mississippi on December 9, 2015, but is expected to be transferred to the Multi-District Litigation (“MDL”) in the District of Arizona.

The plaintiff blames the manufacturer for serious injuries he sustained after being implanted with the Bard Eclipse Optional IVC filter (“Eclipse Filter”). He seeks in excess of $75,000 in damages.

Bard Eclipse Filter Linked with Risk of Fracture

According to his complaint, the plaintiff was implanted with the Bard Eclipse filter in Lee County, Mississippi, on September 29, 2010. The Eclipse filter was designed to be surgically inserted into the vena cava, the main vein carrying blood from the lower legs back to the heart and lungs, where it traps and holds blood clots until they dissipate. The device was intended to help prevent blood clots traveling up from the legs from lodging in the lungs and causing a pulmonary embolism (“PE”).

The Eclipse was FDA-approved on January 14, 2010, and was a newer version of Bard’s earlier IVC filters, namely, the Bard G2 filter. The only difference was that it was electropolished, which Bard stated helped increase resistance to fracture by 25 percent. This was important, as previous Bard filters had been prone to fracturing, with tiny pieces of the filter breaking off and migrating to other internal organs, or perforating the vein or other organs, and causing serious injuries.

Still, without other design changes, the Eclipse remained prone to a higher risk of fracture than was acceptable, considering that previous designs had been linked to fracture rates of over 35 percent. The plaintiff asserts that soon after Bard launched the Eclipse, they began to receive reports of injuries associated with it that were similar to injuries reported with their previous filters.

Indeed, the plaintiff himself experienced one such injury.

Plaintiff’s Bard Eclipse Filter Perforates the Heart

After being implanted with the Bard Eclipse filter, the plaintiff experienced symptoms, and returned back to the doctor. It was discovered that the filter had tilted to an almost horizontal position, and had perforated the vena cava.

It had also migrated to the point of overlapping the end of the plaintiff’s venous stent, and because of all these complications, it can now no longer be removed. This creates a danger of the filter’s arms and/or legs eventually fracturing and migrated.

The plaintiff states that Bard misbranded the Eclipse, labeling it as safe when it was not, and adds that the company was aware of other safer designs that the plaintiff could have used. As a result of his injuries, he has endured significant pain and suffering, and will continue to suffer past and future medical expenses and psychological trauma, as well as lost wages, loss of enjoyment of life, and loss of earning capacity. He will require continuous monitoring of the Eclipse filter.

Comments are closed.