A new legal battle has emerged in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Ohio, where a couple is taking on a major medical device manufacturer over alleged defects in a medical implant. The complaint was filed by Deborah Perkins-Morris and Jeffrey Morris on December 9, 2025, against C.R. Bard Incorporated and Bard Peripheral Vascular Incorporated. This case raises significant concerns about the safety and efficacy of certain medical devices that are supposed to protect patients from life-threatening conditions.
The plaintiffs, Deborah Perkins-Morris and her husband Jeffrey Morris, allege that Deborah suffered severe injuries due to a malfunctioning Bard Eclipse inferior vena cava (IVC) filter implanted in her body in April 2013 at Akron General Hospital. An IVC filter is designed to prevent blood clots from reaching vital organs like the heart and lungs by catching them in the body’s largest vein. However, according to the complaint, Bard’s filters have been plagued with issues since their inception. The plaintiffs claim that Bard rushed its retrievable IVC filters to market without adequate testing or design considerations for long-term safety. They accuse Bard of aggressive marketing tactics despite knowing the potential risks associated with their products.
Bard allegedly took shortcuts in designing and testing their retrievable IVC filters, opting for a streamlined FDA clearance process rather than thorough vetting. The plaintiffs argue that Bard misrepresented these filters as safe permanent implants when they had no substantial evidence supporting such claims. The complaint highlights several studies showing high rates of device malfunctions, including fractures and migrations that could lead to severe complications or even death. Despite receiving numerous adverse event reports and being aware of these risks, Bard continued selling these devices without adequately warning doctors or patients.
The plaintiffs are seeking compensatory damages for Deborah’s injuries which include pain, emotional distress, loss of enjoyment of life, and significant medical expenses due to complications from the filter’s failure. They also demand punitive damages against Bard for what they describe as willful misconduct and gross negligence in prioritizing profits over patient safety.
Representing the plaintiffs are attorneys whose names were not specified in the document provided. The case is presided over by judges from the Northern District of Ohio under Case No. 1:25-cv-02671.
Source: 125cv02671_Morris_v_CR_Bard_Incorporated_Complaint_Northern_District_Ohio.pdf
