Inferior Vera Cava Filters
If you or a family member underwent a cardiovascular procedure where IVC Filters were used may be a risk of various adverse health effects. The FDA released warnings of adverse effects this medical device will cause. Let our legal team provide a no-cost evaluation of your case and help you navigate the claim process to get the compensation you deserve.
IVC Filter Manufacturers
Content for this page is currently under development. Please return shortly and we will have more information about the adverse side-effects of this product.
C.R. Bard and Cook Medical are at the center of IVC filter litigation. If you have one of the following filters and have been injured, you might be eligible for compensation.
- The Bard Recovery filter
- The Bard G2 filter
- The Bard G2 Express filter
- The Cook Gunther Tulip filter
- The Cook Celect filter
A study published in 2012 in Cardiovascular Interventional Radiology found that 100% of the Cook filters perforated the participant’s venal wall within 71 days of implantation. Additionally, in 40% of study participants, the filter was found to have tilted away from it’s original position to capture blood clots.
Symptoms and Side-Effects
The U.S. Food & Drug Administration (FDA) received hundreds of adverse reports about retrievable IVC filters. Reported complications included punctured organs, blood vessels and filter migration to different parts of the body.
In 2010, the FDA released a safety communication following more than 900 adverse reports related to retrievable filters. The FDA warned the retrievable filter posed risk of filter fracture, device migration and organ perforation and should be removed as soon as the patient was no longer at risk for blood clots. In 2014, the FDA updated the safety communication, stating most devices should be removed between the 29th and 54th day after implantation. However, this warning was late for many injured victims.
Retrieving and removing IVC filters has proven to be problematic. A study published in JAMA Internal Medicine in March 2013 found that less than 10% of filters were successfully removed, with 8% of IVC patients suffering a pulmonary embolism in spite of having an IVC in place.
News
The first lawsuits against IVC manufacturers were filed in 2012 in California and Pennsylvania state courts.
In late 2013, California Superior Court Judge Edward Sturgeon denied a motion by Bard for summary judgment. This was the manufacturers’ second attempt to stop plaintiff’s case from going to trial but the Court stated that the case should be allowed to proceed.
Once again in late 2014, Bard moved for summary judgment and United States District Court Judge Robert C. Jones denied the motion and upheld the plaintiff’s right to seek punitive damages in the case.
In October 2014, the U.S. Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation (MDL) consolidated lawsuits against Cook from 11 districts to an MDL in Southern District of Indiana.
In February 2015, C.R. Bard settled the case of Kevin Phillips after 11 days of trial. According to court documents, the Bard Recovery IVC filter broke inside his body, migrated to his heart, and perforated it. The perforation required him to have open heart surgery.
Most recently, in August of 2015, The U.S. Judicial Panel on MDL consolidated several lawsuits against Bard to the U.S. District Court of Arizona.
If you have been injured by an IVC filter, call us today to discuss your legal options
Injured?
If you or a loved one have been injured by this product, please contact us at (877) 512-3621. An attorney with Morgan Adams Law, PLLC will call you within 24 hours. Let our firm help you through the difficult claim process to ensure you or your loved one receives the compensation rightfully due.