The wife of a man who died as a result of a blood clot filter becoming dislodged and traveling to his heart alleges that the manufacturer of the blood clot filter is responsible for her husband’s death because it knew that the filter was defective.
The husband was contemplating having bariatric surgery in 2005 at which time his doctors agreed to perform the procedure only if he agreed to have a blood clot filter implanted first, due to his previous history of a pulmonary embolism. The husband agreed to have the Recovery IVC blood clot filter (inferior vena cava filter) manufactured by C. R. Bard, Inc. (“Bard”) implanted so that he could have the bariatric surgery. Health insurance issues delayed his bariatric surgery for two years but the husband finally had the bariatric surgery performed.
While recovering from the surgery in the hospital, the husband felt pressure in his chest and with the help of his wife, got out of his hospital bed so that he could walk to the bathroom. Before he reached the bathroom, he collapsed to the floor of his hospital room and died while on the floor.
The wife believed at the time of her husband’s death that he had died as a result of a complication from the bariatric surgery. It was only after the results of an autopsy that the wife learned the truth: the Bard Recovery blood clot filter had become dislodged from where it had been implanted, due to a small blood clot, and the filter then traveled to her husband’s heart and caused his death. She was told that the blood clot that dislodged the IVC filter was not large enough to have caused her husband’s death.
According to reports of government data, the blood clot filter has contributed to at least 27 deaths and 300 other serious medical problems. It has been reported that Bard had hired an outside medical investigator to study its Recovery blood clot filter and that the investigation concluded that the Bard Recovery blood clot filter had a higher rate of fracture and migration, and was associated with a higher risk of death, than its competitors’ filters. The Bard Recovery IVC filter was first introduced into the market in 2003 and was removed from the market in 2005.
Bard did not issue a recall but sold approximately 34,000 of the Recovery blood clot filters before introducing a replacement filter (the husband had been implanted with the Recovery IVC blood clot filter about one month after the replacement filter had become available).
Because Bard never recalled the Recovery IVC filter, many patients implanted with the filter still have the filters in them.
If you or a loved one were seriously injured (or worse) due to a Bard IVC filter, you should promptly find a defective medical device claim lawyer who may investigate your IVC filter claim for you and represent you in a claim for compensation due to the harm you or your loved one suffered as a result of a defective IVC filter.
Turn to us when you don’t know where to turn.