IVC Filter

IVC Filter

IVC Filter

About This Case

The IVC Filter lawsuit is a significant legal battle that has taken center stage in the medical device industry, pitting patients against manufacturers Bard and Cook Medical. The crux of these lawsuits revolves around serious complications patients have experienced, including filter fracture, migration, embolization, and perforation - all alleged to be caused by these companies' IVC filters. 



Amidst growing discontent and mounting punitive damages awarded by juries, the FDA has stepped in, issuing safety alerts about retrievable IVC filters, further underlining the concerns over device migration, high failure rates, and the critical need for their timely removal.

Statistics

IVC Filter Lawsuit Verdicts: Legal proceedings involving IVC filters have resulted in substantial verdicts in favor of the plaintiffs. For instance, a $3.3 million verdict was upheld for a patient who had a fragment from a Meridian IVC filter lodged in her heart. This highlights the potential physical risks and legal consequences associated with the use of these devices.

Patient Follow-Up and Device Retrieval Success: Studies indicate that rigorous follow-up with patients who have undergone IVC filter implantation can significantly enhance the likelihood of successful device retrieval. This underscores the importance of thorough post-procedure patient care and continuous monitoring in the management of IVC filters.

Ongoing Legal Challenges for Manufacturers: Several manufacturers of IVC filters, including Bard, are currently facing legal challenges due to claims of design defects and failure to adequately warn about the risks associated with their products. These ongoing lawsuits underscore the need for manufacturers to ensure their products are safe, effective, and accompanied by comprehensive risk information.

IVC Filter Lawsuit Verdicts: Legal proceedings involving IVC filters have resulted in substantial verdicts in favor of the plaintiffs. For instance, a $3.3 million verdict was upheld for a patient who had a fragment from a Meridian IVC filter lodged in her heart. This highlights the potential physical risks and legal consequences associated with the use of these devices.

Patient Follow-Up and Device Retrieval Success: Studies indicate that rigorous follow-up with patients who have undergone IVC filter implantation can significantly enhance the likelihood of successful device retrieval. This underscores the importance of thorough post-procedure patient care and continuous monitoring in the management of IVC filters.

Ongoing Legal Challenges for Manufacturers: Several manufacturers of IVC filters, including Bard, are currently facing legal challenges due to claims of design defects and failure to adequately warn about the risks associated with their products. These ongoing lawsuits underscore the need for manufacturers to ensure their products are safe, effective, and accompanied by comprehensive risk information.

IVC Filter Lawsuit Verdicts: Legal proceedings involving IVC filters have resulted in substantial verdicts in favor of the plaintiffs. For instance, a $3.3 million verdict was upheld for a patient who had a fragment from a Meridian IVC filter lodged in her heart. This highlights the potential physical risks and legal consequences associated with the use of these devices.

Patient Follow-Up and Device Retrieval Success: Studies indicate that rigorous follow-up with patients who have undergone IVC filter implantation can significantly enhance the likelihood of successful device retrieval. This underscores the importance of thorough post-procedure patient care and continuous monitoring in the management of IVC filters.

Ongoing Legal Challenges for Manufacturers: Several manufacturers of IVC filters, including Bard, are currently facing legal challenges due to claims of design defects and failure to adequately warn about the risks associated with their products. These ongoing lawsuits underscore the need for manufacturers to ensure their products are safe, effective, and accompanied by comprehensive risk information.

Trust A Firm With Over 10 Years Of Experience In Fighting For Others

Common

Questions

Common

Questions

Common

Questions

01

How do I Qualify?

Implanted device prior to February 2016, device migration, device breakage, implant failure leading to pregnancy issues or loss, abdominal pain, irregular menstruation, bleeding, and perforation of fallopian tubes, uterus, or colon.

02

What is an IVC Filter?

IVC filters, medical devices implanted to prevent pulmonary embolism, have raised concerns about companies neglecting to inform consumers of their dangers. Patients who have experienced complications like migration, fracture, or organ perforation may be eligible for a settlement. 

03

Which IVC filters have been recalled?

The FDA has issued several recalls and warnings regarding IVC filters. Among these recalls, two were classified as Class I, indicating a significant likelihood of severe adverse health consequences or even death associated with the product's use. One of the Class I recalls pertained to Boston Scientific's Greenfield Vena Cava Filter, while the other was related to Cordis' OptEase Vena Cava Filter.


Additionally, there were four Class II recalls involving the aforementioned filters, along with B. Braun's VenaTech LP Vena Cava Filter System and Bard's Denali IVC Filter.


These actions by the FDA highlight the importance of addressing potential risks and ensuring the safety of individuals using IVC filters.

04

What occurred with these IVC filters?

An inferior vena cava (IVC) filter is a tiny metallic device implanted inside the inferior vena cava to intercept blood clots that migrate from the lower body to the heart and lungs. These clots, if left unchecked, can travel to the lungs and cause a potentially life-threatening condition called pulmonary embolism (PE). By capturing large clots, the filters effectively minimize the risk of blockage in the heart or lungs. Interventional radiologists use image guidance to carefully position these filters, which have been in use since 1979 and have been placed in more than 260,000 patients.

JJJ: IVC Filter Case Updates

Latest Updates on IVC Filter Lawsuits: Understanding the Risks and Legal Developments

By Jason J. Joy & Associates • September 1, 2023
First introduced in 1979, Inferior Vena Cava (IVC) filters are devices used to prevent blood clots from reaching the lungs. The filters are commonly used in patients who are at risk of pulmonary embolism (a blockage), especially those who cannot take blood-thinning medications. The filter is placed in the Inferior Vena Cava, a large vein in the abdomen that returns blood from the lower body to the heart. While these filters are typically effective in stopping blood clots, they can also lead to hazardous side effects like vein perforation, filter migration, fracture, and embolization. This article provides the latest updates on IVC filter lawsuits, highlighting the associated risks and significant legal developments. So, if you've suffered from any of the following IVC filter-related complications, you may be entitled to compensation: IVC filter side effects include chest pain, confusion, heart rhythm problems, hypotension, lightheadedness, nausea, neck pain, shortness of breath, hemorrhaging, and internal bleeding. The FDA has identified several unreasonable risks associated with IVC filters, including device fracture, migration, and perforation of organs. Perforation, where a part of the filter migrates through the wall of the IVC, is a common issue. Surgical removal of certain IVC filters can result in high morbidity and mortality rates. Leaving IVC filters in can lead to severe and potentially deadly injuries such as hemorrhage, pulmonary embolism, and stroke. Recent Verdicts and Legal Progressions: The Seventh Circuit upheld a $3.3 million verdict in favor of Natalie Johnson in an IVC filter lawsuit against C.R. Bard. A judge in Montana refused to dismiss an IVC lawsuit against Bard, allowing a design defect claim to go to trial. There have been three plaintiffs' verdicts in recent years, including a $3.3 million verdict for a woman with a Bard Meridian IVC Filter. A jury awarded $386,250 in a fractured filter case against C.R. Bard. Bard was found negligent in causing their G2 IVC filter to fracture, resulting in a $3.6 million jury award. Cook Celect was ordered to pay $1.2 million in a lawsuit where they failed to warn about the risks of their IVC filter. Cook Medical lost a lawsuit where a woman suffered a cardiac injury from their defective IVC filter. IVC filter lawsuits continue to unfold, with significant legal developments and verdicts shedding light on the risks associated with these devices. Patients who have experienced complications from IVC filters are encouraged to seek legal counsel and understand their rights. Here at Jason J. Joy & Associates, we understand how difficult it can be when dealing with medical complications caused by an IVC filter, and we are committed to helping our clients receive justice for their suffering. Our team has extensive experience handling these types of cases and will work tirelessly on your behalf to ensure that you receive fair compensation for your injuries and losses.  While this article provides general legal information, it does not constitute legal advice. The best way to get guidance on your specific legal issue is to contact a lawyer.

Get Started With a Free Consultation

Contact Us

OR