Case guide

Bard IVC filters: which records matter?

Check the Bard model in your implant record. The April 2021 order describes disputed claims and cases sent to other courts.

See If You Qualify

Free · No obligation · About 2 minutes

Updated Oct 4, 20269 sources

This may apply to you if

  • These suggestions help you prepare for a claim check. They are not a firm's acceptance rules.
  • For a check, gather the filter brand/model and implant date if known.
  • Describe the harm and later care in your own words.

What the public record says

These are cited sources. Their inclusion does not imply that they endorse People’s Justice or reviewed this page.

David G. Campbell · United States District Court for the District of Arizona · United States district judge signing the cited order

Finding: TheApril 26, 2021 Bard order ended centralized proceedings and contemplated further litigation in other courts for specified cases. It did not terminate every manufacturer's individual claim.

Campbell: Bard amended final remand/transfer orderDoc22042 (opens in a new tab) · Apr 26, 2021 · Checked Oct 3, 2026

The evidence and its limits

54 United States study sites; first-author affiliation Indiana University · Journal of Vascular and Interventional Radiology · 2023

PRESERVE: Outcomes at 12 months

Design:
Cohort
Participants:
1429 consenting participants; 1421 received filters.
Finding:
Prespecified safety and effectiveness goals were met, with adverse events also recorded, including a death during attempted retrieval.
Main limitation
Prospective nonrandomized study, varied follow-up and many removed filters; no randomized untreated comparison or lifetime model-specific risk estimate. Original author abstract read; full paper and funding/conflicts not reviewed.

Read the source: PRESERVE: Outcomes at 12 months (opens in a new tab) · Checked Oct 3, 2026

The short answer

Which Bard filters does the cited order discuss?
The order names models such as Recovery, G2 and Denali. Check your implant record for the exact device. Do not guess from a picture. [7]
What did patients allege and what did Bard dispute?
Patients alleged filter tilt, breakage, movement and piercing of the vein. Bard disputed the claims and said its filters were safe and effective. [7]
What did the April 2021 order change?
The order said shared Bard court work had ended. Some cases had settled or been dismissed. Others would go back or move to other courts. [7]
Does filter research decide the Bard dispute?
No. A study followed people with filters and reported both benefits and harm. It was not a legal ruling on all Bard models or one patient. [9]

The process

What happens next

  1. 01

    You answer a few questions

    About two minutes. Nothing is sent until you agree on the last step and press submit.

  2. 02

    A lawyer looks at it

    A lawyer at the firm reads your answers and checks them against the current case criteria.

  3. 03

    The firm decides and gets in touch

    If the firm takes your case, you get the terms in writing to read before you sign. You can always say no.

Check the Bard model in your implant record. The April 2021 order describes disputed claims and cases sent to other courts. It does not decide your care or current case result.

Which Bard filters does the cited order discuss?

The order names models such as Recovery, G2 and Denali. Check your implant record for the exact device. Do not guess from a picture.

The order also names G2X, Eclipse and Meridian. Its footnote says Simon Nitinol cases were not subject to that order. A company name alone does not place every filter or patient within the same court action.

What did patients allege and what did Bard dispute?

Patients alleged filter tilt, breakage, movement and piercing of the vein. Bard disputed the claims and said its filters were safe and effective.

The order summarizes competing positions so courts receiving cases can understand the prior proceedings. A summary of allegations is not a finding that your filter caused a diagnosed injury. Keep a clinician's report separate from a lawsuit description.

What did the April 2021 order change?

The order said shared Bard court work had ended. Some cases had settled or been dismissed. Others would go back or move to other courts.

Judge David G. Campbell signed and filed the order April 26, 2021. That is the order date used here. The history does not establish the latest result of a case after it moved to a different court.

Does filter research decide the Bard dispute?

No. A study followed people with filters and reported both benefits and harm. It was not a legal ruling on all Bard models or one patient.

PRESERVE had 1429 consenting participants and 1421 implants at 54 sites. It had no randomized no-filter comparison. Ask how evidence relates to the precise device instead of treating a broad study as a defect verdict.

What should I ask about the filter still in my body?

Ask the care team whether it is still needed and what the scans show. Some filters stay in permanently; retrieval has risks.

The FDA's 2021 authorization concerns a specific tool for embedded filters after other removal methods fail. It is not a command to remove every Bard filter or to choose a procedure because of litigation.

How can I prepare for a Bard claim check?

Keep the implant report, later care notes and any case papers. Ask a lawyer to check the model, court and filing rule for you.

For an existing lawsuit, include notices showing transfer or dismissal, without assuming the headline describes your result. Ask providers for missing covered records through their access process, which has exceptions.

Find out where you stand.

The review is free and private. Asking for it doesn’t commit you to anything.

Register your interest

Sources

  1. ABA Model Rule 1.5: feesABA Model Rule 1.5: fees
  2. Southern District of New York: time limitsSouthern District of New York: time limits · court
  3. 45 CFR 164.524: access to health records45 CFR 164.524: access to health records · regulator
  4. Johnson: PRESERVE12-month outcomes, original author abstractJohnson: PRESERVE12-month outcomes, original author abstract · study
  5. FDA: authorization of laser filter-removal deviceFDA: authorization of laser filter-removal device · regulator
  6. FDA: Option ELITE recallZ-0589-2026FDA: Option ELITE recallZ-0589-2026 · regulator
  7. Campbell: Bard amended final remand/transfer orderDoc22042Campbell: Bard amended final remand/transfer orderDoc22042 · court
  8. JPML: Cook filter transfer orderJPML: Cook filter transfer order · court
  9. Johnson et al.: original PRESERVE abstract and metadata

Checked against 9 primary sources by People's Justice editors · Updated

How we make money

People's Justice research team · Updated Oct 4, 2026