IVC Filter Lawsuit

IVC Filter Defect & Injury Attorneys

IVC filters were designed for patients as an alternative to blood thinners to treat blood clots and work by trapping the clots before they can enter the lungs or heart. Unfortunately, like many other medical devices that are rushed to market, these devices have harmed many of the patients they were meant to help.

IVC filter manufacturers that make and sell harmful products must provide financial compensation to anyone who is injured due to their use.

The IVC filter defect attorneys of Rosenfeld Injury Lawyers LLC represent clients who have been injured due to medical device design flaws and stand ready to assist you with any questions you may have about your device or what your legal rights may be.

We can also provide information to you about pending IVC filter complication lawsuits involving various IVC filter makers, including Cook Medical and C.R. Bard IVC filter. Contact our office now for a free case review.

How IVC Filters Work

Untreated blood clots are dangerous because when they move into the lungs, heart, or brain, they can cause serious injuries, including stroke, deep vein thrombosis, heart failure, and pulmonary embolism.

An IVC filter is inserted into the body via the inferior vena cava and acts as a net designed to capture any clots before they can do serious harm.

Once clots are caught in these devices, they break up and disappear over time. They were marketed as a suitable alternative to blood-thinning medications and patients who developed clots regardless of any other preventative measure or treatment.

Rosenfeld Injury Lawyers LLC is committed to holding IVC filter makers accountable when their defective devices cause severe injury or death. Our experienced IVC filter lawyers can assist you with your legal claim via a product liability lawsuit against the device manufacturer or joining a pending class action or multidistrict litigation case.

IVC Filters: FDA Approval

Inferior vena cava filters have proven to prevent recurrent pulmonary embolism (PE) in individuals where anticoagulant therapies are not successful.

The FDA (Food and Drug Administration) has cleared various types of IVC filters to treat recurrent pulmonary embolism under specific circumstances, including:

When treating the patient's condition with anticoagulants could be harmful

When previous anticoagulant therapies failed

When the benefits of conventional therapy are not as good as emergency massive pulmonary embolism (PE) treatment

When anticoagulant therapies have proven unsuccessful or harmful when treating chronic recurrent pulmonary embolism

Typically, surgeons install IVC filters to prevent PE, but only in patients with a PE history. The FDA has yet to approve any off-label use of IVC filters.

Even so, data show that nearly half of all IVC filter implantation surgical procedures involve off-label use of inferior vena cava filters that have caused significant medical problems.

In 2014, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration issued a formal warning that the length of time and implanted filter remains in place could cause severe complications citing a Centers for Devices and Radiological Health research studies.

The study showed that once the risk of developing a PE is over, the risk of keeping the device in place for up to two months could significantly outweigh any benefit allowing it to remain in place.

The research indicates that the filter should be removed in people with a diminished risk of developing PE.

C.R. Bard and Other IVC Filter Manufacturers

Medical device companies manufactured two categories of IVC (inferior vena cava) filters: permanent and retrievable. The design of the permanent filters allows them to remain in place indefinitely.

Alternatively, a retrievable IVC filter is designed for temporary use where the surgeon will remove the device when no longer necessary or medically advised.

In some cases, the FDA cleared retrievable filters to be used permanently as a viable option under specific circumstances.

Permanent inferior vena cava devices include:

• Boston Scientific Titanium Greenfield filter (1989)
• Braun Vena Tech LGM filter (1989)
• Braun Vena Tech LP filter (2001)
• Cook Medical Bird's Nest filter (1982)
• Bard Simon Nitinol filter (1990)
• Cordis TrapEase filter (2000)
• Optease permanent filter (2002)
• Retrievable inferior vena cava devices include:
• ALN IVC filter (2012)
• Bard IVC filters, including Denali (2013), Bard IVC Eclipse (2010), G2 (2005), Bard IVC G2 Express & G2X (2008), Bard IVC Meridian (2011), and Bard IVC Recovery (2002)
• Cook Medical IVC filters, including Cook Celect (2007) and Guenther Tulip (2003)
• Rex Medical IVC filters, including Option (2009) and Option Delete (2013)
• Optease retrievable filter (2004)

Braun Tempfilter I Temporary Inferior Vena Cava Filter Fatal Cases

Even though the FDA (Food and Drug Administration) cleared many temporary IV filters for permanent placement, surgeons typically use these retrievable and optional devices temporarily. That said, the Braun Tempfilter II does not have clearance to be used as a permanent solution, which has been cleared to be used for up to three months.

The Braun Tempfilter II is a redesign of the temporary Tempfilter I blood clot filter after the FDA suspended the original filter after some devices migrated to the patients' right atrium. Two of those IVC filter cases proved to be fatal.

However, numerous complications involving the Braun Tempfilter II have been reported. In one case, a filter leg fractured, embedding in the inferior vena cava vein wall. Fortunately, the fractured piece did not migrate to the patient's atrium.

Product Defects Attorneys Explain What Went Wrong With Most IVC Filters

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) began fielding adverse event reports in 2005 from hundreds of people claiming adverse health events and fatal injuries, and as more complaints began to surface, the FDA eventually released a warning letter citing all the health risks associated with the devices.

Concerns over the retrievable inferior vena cava (IVC) filters included the perforation of organs, damage to major blood vessels, fracturing of the filter, and the filter's movement from its original location to other areas of the body. This warning resulted in a sea of litigation as hundreds of people came forward with claims that the devices' implantation caused them severe injury.

Three popular brands of IVC filters have received the most legal attention, all of which are manufactured by Cook Group and C.R. Bard IVC filters. The brands are the Bard Recovery filter, Bard G2 filter, and Bard G2 Express filter.

Plaintiffs in ongoing class-action lawsuits have claimed that C.R Bard failed to provide adequate warnings to people about the risks associated with their filters, that the products contained design defects and that Bard made erroneous claims about the products.

Over 900 Reports of Injuries Reported in Patient With IVC Filters

From the period between 2005 when the FDA received its first reports of adverse events until 2010, over 900 reported injuries could be linked to the use of defective filters. The severe injuries that were reported include but were not limited to the following.

• The perforation of nearby organs. Organ perforation is the laceration of an organ from the inside and can result in internal bleeding, infection, and other serious IVC filter complications that are dependent on the organ which has been injured.
• Device migration. The purpose of the IVC filter is to remain in place and separate clots from the bloodstream. The filter could detach and travel to another location to embed and cause injuries and internal organ damage.
• Filter fracture. When the filter fractures, tiny pieces move through the blood and eventually embed themselves in tissue, blood vessels, or organs and cause perforations and other IVC filter complications. In one instance, the piece of a fractured filter traveled to the victim's heart, and emergency open-heart surgery was required to repair the laceration.

Our IVC defect attorneys are well versed in the medical implications a defective device can have. We invite you to speak to an attorney today to discuss your legal options.

IVC Filter Verdicts, Lawsuits, MDL Litigation, & Class Action Lawsuits

In 2018, Bard resolved an IVC filter case after a court ordered the company to pay a female patient $3.6 million. Cook Medical and Bard also agreed to settle numerous IVC filter lawsuit settlements that year. However, the resolved cases involved undisclosed amounts.

By 2019, plaintiffs have filed over 14,000 IVC filter lawsuits against Cook Medical and Bard. Over half of the cases were filed in U.S. district court for the district of Arizona and the remainder in the federal court in the U.S. District Court Southern District of indiana.

Months later, a federal panel combined all these cases into MDLs (multidistrict litigation) cases to determine the most efficient legal process in handling the high number of IVC filter lawsuits.

Within months, the judicial panel on multidistrict litigation court ordered a bellwether case to help identify these cases' value and determine any potential IVC filter settlements when the cases were returned to their local communities.

The first two bellwether trials in 2017 2018 favored Cook Medical; that one the first trial and had the second case dismissed because the judge stated that the plaintiff's statute of limitations had expired.

To date, Cook Medical and Bard have not offered a worldwide settlement. Instead, both companies agreed to settle most claims filed in local courts for undisclosed amounts.

Plaintiff attorneys have not yet filed IVC filter class-action suits in federal court. However, Cook Medical filters have been targeted in two class-actions filed in Canada.

IVC Filter Lawsuit FAQs

The personal injury attorneys at Rosenfeld Injury Lawyers, LLC understand that many families have unanswered questions about IVC filter settlements and trials. Many of these lawsuits are handled in Multidistrict litigation, courts in other states, while some are handled in a local court.

An IVC filter lawsuit attorney has answered some of the most frequently asked questions (FAQs) below about IVC file settlements and jury verdicts. If you need any additional information, contact us today at (888) 424-5757 (toll-free phone call) now to schedule a free consultation.

How Current IVC Litigation Affects You:: IVC Defect Lawyers Ready to Assist You

The IVC filter attorneys of Rosenfeld Injury Lawyers, LLC monitor ongoing defective IVC filter lawsuits as they could set the tone for cases in the future. The latest development in the growing mass tort against the makers of these devices was a settlement in February of 2015 in which C.R Bard came to an out-of-court agreement with the plaintiff only ten days after the commencement of the trial.

Numerous defective product lawsuits are still underway in state and federal courts across the country.

To learn more about the status of these cases and for a free consultation of your case, contact us today, and we will evaluate the details of your injury or wrongful death case while going over all of your legal options together to recover compensation for medical bills, lost wages and medical care.

All of our IVC filter lawsuits are handled on a contingency fee basis where we only charge a legal fee when we are successful in obtaining a financial recovery for you. Contact our law firm today to learn more.