Bard

In 2004, Bard introduced one of the first retrievable filters onto the market. The “Recovery” filter, as its name would imply, was Bard’s answer to the race to the market for a filter that could be left in the body for a lifetime, just like its other filter—the Simon-Nitinol (the SNF)—or if warranted could be retrieved at any time. Unlike the SNF the Recovery filter was marketed and allegedly designed to provide the doctor with choices: Risk for a pulmonary emobolus has passed? Take it out. Patient wanting a temporary filter? Retrieve it. The marketing avenues were numerous. Put very plainly, the Recovery filter gave the doctor (and her patient) the choice—leave a permanent filter in the body with all its inherent risks or simply take it out.

Unfortunately, marketing is not always reality. The Recovery filter had an abysmal failure rate. Those expecting a short-term success in the prevention of pulmonary embolus were presented with failure of a kind they never expected—fractured filters sending shards of metal to their heart, open heart surgery, lung and kidney surgery to remove broken filters, massive open procedures to take filters out of other parts of the body, migration of the entire filter straight to the heart, perforations of the legs of the filter into other organs, and pierced vessels including the aorta.

The Recovery was a disaster. The filter was implanted in thousands of patients until in 2005 it was pulled from the market due to its poor safety record. A 2010 study found the device failed at a rate of 25%, with 7 out of 28 patients suffering from fragmentation and embolization. Many Bard Recovery IVC filter lawsuits have resulted from these issues, and more are being filed every month.

 Bard-Recovery-IVC-Filter3

Bard G2 and the other Bard Filters

The Bard G2 was touted as the “next generation” IVC filter following the failed Bard Recovery. Unfortunately, Bard’s generation two filter was no better than its predecessor. The G2 was little more than a marketing ploy designed to grab a share of the exciting new retrievability market abandoned by the Recovery. A credible study from a Pennsylvania hospital found that fragmentation and embolization occurred in 12% of patients. Despite knowing the problems of the G2, Bard kept the filter on the market until 2010, selling more than 160,000 units over five years. Over that time, many dangerous complications and wrongful deaths occurred, and they continue to occur.

Plagued with a filter that could not be counted on any more than the Recovery, Bard began its countdown to filter failure after filter failure after filter failure—hoping to lure new customers to its new and “improved” but now defunct models such as the G2, the G2 Express, the G2 Eclipse, and the Meridian…all the way to its currently marketed “Denali.”

Unfortunately for patients, the replacements carried the same complications as the Recovery– fracture, migration, perforation, embolization, and thrombus. Like all IVC filters, there is little evidence that Bard IVC filters work at all. They have not undergone Level 1 FDA clinical trials to prove that they actually prevent pulmonary embolus. The evidence that they work is nonexistent. The evidence that they harm is undeniable.

 Bard-G2-IVC-Filter3

The MDL: The Path Forward

Thousands of cases are pending against Bard in federal court in a multi-district litigation (MDL) proceeding pending in the United States District Court, District of Arizona. Although cases may no longer be filed in the MDL, Martin Baughman continues to accept new cases. Cases may still be filed in state and federal courts around the country. The longer an IVC filter is in the body, the more likely an injury will occur. Thus, Martin Baughman expects that the number of Bard’s victims will continue to grow, and we are here to represent you.

Let’s talk about your Bard IVC filter case.

Martin Baughman is committed to our clients who have been injured by Bard filters and will continue to press forward with new cases and trials. Our firm has hundreds of Bard cases filed all across the country. Our lawyers are leaders in the Bard IVC filter litigation. Ben C. Martin is a member of the plaintiffs’ steering committee in the federal MDL in Phoenix, Arizona. Martin Baughman’s lawyers are working every day preparing their cases for trial against Bard and welcome your call if you have a Bard filter. Let’s talk about your Bard IVC filter case.