The Bard G2 IVC Filter has been associated with many serious health complications. The device is temporarily implanted an individual’s interior vena cava and is used to prevent the migration of blood clots into the lungs that can cause pulmonary embolism. One of the most hazardous risks of the device is the effects it can have on an individual’s heart.
The Bard G2 IVC Filter runs the risk of migrating to an individual’s heart. Patients may experience headaches and severe pain, according to the website of Habush Habush & Rottier S.C., but the actual repercussions of the device can stretch far beyond these side effects. The device can cause major heart complications, including cardiac tamponade. This condition causes fluid buildup in the space around the heart and can lead to blood not being able to be pumped to the heart, heart tumors, and heart attacks. The device may also cause ventricular tachycardia, which leads to improper electrical activity of the heart that can lead to a rapid heartbeat among other side effects. Since the device is originally implanted so close to the heart, it can lead to even more life-threatening heart conditions if not removed immediately after the threat of blood clots is eliminated. Some other heart conditions that can arise from the Bard G2 IVC filter include hemmorhagic pericardial effusion, perforation of the heart, and laceration of the heart. The device can even erode and become embedded into the heart.
All of these conditions of the heart caused by the filter are potentially life-threatening and have already caused the deaths of individuals who had the device implanted. Despite these horrific heart risks, C.R. Bard, the company behind the device, failed to recall the device or properly warn against the risks. If you or a loved one has suffered a heart injury due to the Bard G2 IVC Filter, you may be entitled to compensation for your suffering.
Many prescription drugs are manufactured for specific conditions, but may also be efficacious in others that may not have been intended or studied. Viagra (sildenafil), for instance, was originally formulated as a treatment for hypertension, but is currently more closely associated with erectile dysfunction. Many birth control formulations are also frequently used as a treatment for acne. These are considered “off label” uses and are generally acceptable provided it is done with caution and after some studies have been conducted to investigate the effects of this type of use. In many cases, off label uses have provided unexpected benefits for patients.
But it does not always work out for the best.
One example is Depakote, the anti-seizure medication manufactured by Abbott Labs. It is accepted that prescription medications are likely to have serious side effects, which is why they are not available over-the-counter and patients take it under the supervision of a doctor. But when a drug company in the US encourages the use of a product without the approval of the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and personal injury results, it renders the company vulnerable to criminal and civil action.
Depakote is primarily intended to provide relief for epileptic patients; even when used for this, allegations of the drug causing birth defects have sparked legal trouble for the manufacturer for failing to provide adequate and timely warning to physicians and patients. Add to that marketing strategies that encourage off label uses of Depakote for treatment of bipolar disorder and migraines, and there is a recipe for disaster. Many civil lawsuits focus on the fact that women who suffer from bipolar disorder or migraine are prescribed with Depakote when they should not be, and the resulting birth defects of their children are due to this off label use.
If you or someone you know has been described with Depakote for epilepsy or other uses and a child is born with a birth defect such as spina bifida, there may be a personal injury case in the making. Consult with a products liability lawyerfamiliar with Depakote litigation in your area to get advice on how to proceed with a claim.
A popular story that has been circulating by email and on social networks is misleading, although there is a possibility of product liability in specific instances.
The story about how a laptop left on the bed caused the fire which killed its sleeping 25-year-old owner is mostly true, except for the part about what caused it. The young graduate named in the story, Arun Gopalratnam, did actually die from a house fire in June 2010 but fire experts have not determined how the fire got started in the first place.
It is possible that a laptop ignited the fire, but only if there was some type of defect involved. The story was circulated to warn the public about how leaving a laptop on the bed would cause the unit to overheat because the vents are blocked and start a fire is inaccurate. A laptop would not normally cause a fire unless the wiring is defective or the battery is faulty. If, in fact a house fire is caused by a laptop and it was found that unit was defective, it could be the basis for a product liability lawsuit. In general, however, laptops are not a fire hazard, covered vent or not.
That having been said, it is not recommended to keep electronic gadgets such as computers, game consoles, and the like near combustible materials such as pillows and beds. Defects are usually not apparent until an accident happens.