IVC Filter Lawsuit Lawyer – Settlement Amount, Recall & 2018 Updates
IVC Filter Lawsuit Header IVC Filter Lawsuit Header

The lawsuits involving IVC filters claim the makers of IVC filters were negligent in the design of these devices, and that they are failing at a high rate. Patients are experiencing bleeding, organ damage, and chronic pain.

Our law firm is accepting clients who suffered injuries as a result of an IVC filter.

We have been handling lawsuits against medical device manufacturers since 1955. Each year we teach 1,500 attorneys how to successfully handle these cases. We are listed in Best Lawyers in America and The National Trial Lawyers Hall of Fame.

 

Why Are IVC Filter Lawsuits Being Filed?

IVC Filter Prescription Banner

The lawsuits involving the IVC Filter state the manufacturers of the device failed to warn patients and physicians of the increased risks of the filter breaking, and metal fragments moving through the blood, potentially damaging an organ.

Attorneys argue that C.R. Bard (the manufacturer) hid the results of its own research which found the filter dangerous, and even forged an employee's signature on an FDA application in order to get approval.

The Key Legal Issue
IVC Filters are breaking inside patients, and metal parts are moving through the body; damaging the heart, lungs and causing internal bleeding.
Read More

Five products are most often involved in the IVC filter litigation: The Bard Recovery filter; The Bard G2 filter; The Bard G2 Express filter; The Cook Gunther Tulip filter; and the Cook Celect filter. Other filters causing problems include the Bard Eclipse, Bard Merdian, and Bard Denali.

 

IVC Filter Injuries & Side Effects

There have been reports of the IVC blood clot filter falling out of place or breaking apart. The metal device, or pieces from it, can then move through the blood, working their way through a vein wall and puncturing an internal organ.

There are also reports of blood clots occurring at the location where the device was inserted – the same clotting the device is supposed to prevent.

Below are some of the more frequent injuries experienced when IVC filter parts reach the heart or lungs. If you believe your IVC filter might have failed, you should seek a free case evaluation.

COMMON INJURIES SEVERE INJURIES
Chest Pain Death
Confusion Hemorrhage (severe bleeding)
Heart Rhythm Problems Pulmonary Embolism
Hypotension Stroke
Lightheadedness
Nausea
Neck Pain
Shortness of Breath
Hemorrhaging or Internal Bleeding
 
Read More

What has happened in many cases is that an IVC filter fractures and sends small, sharp metal shards through the patient's circulatory system, or falls out of position altogether. Either way, this can cause severe, painful and life-threatening injuries.

When the artery is punctured, it can cause secondary injuries to other organs. The metal shards can even reach the heart itself, causing arrhythmia (irregular heartbeat), perforating the walls of the heart chamber.

It can also result in a condition known as cardiac tamponade, in which fluid such as pus or blood leaks into the pericardium (the tissue lining surrounding the heart muscle), causing pressure and interfering with heartbeat.

 

Compensation in an IVC Filter Lawsuit

If you have sustained injuries because of an IVC Filter, we will be seeking the following damages for you:

  1. Past and future medical expenses that result from any injuries caused by the IVC filter.
  2. Past and future pain and suffering (physical and mental) caused by the injuries, and the treatment and recovery process.
  3. Past and future wage loss, if any.
  4. Past and future loss of capacity to earn money.
  5. Past and future loss of enjoyment of life.
  6. Punitive damages, if appropriate.

As of September 2018, more than 8,800 lawsuits were pending in federal court against the manufacturers of IVC Filters by individuals who claim to have experienced various injuries.

 
 
Why Choose Us

Our law firm started handling personal injury cases in 1955. Today, we are recognized as a national leader in lawsuits involving medical device injuries. We have received over 150 jury verdicts for $1 million or more, and have won jury verdicts and settlements in excess of $4 billion.

We are one of a few law firms that have been appointed to the Plaintiffs Steering Committee by the judges handling the federal lawsuits involving IVC filters. This means that we are directly involved in the national investigation that will hopefully result in compensation for the individuals injured by these medical devices.

We also are the founder of Mass Torts Made Perfect. This is a national conference attended by 1,500 lawyers each year where we teach how to successfully handle lawsuits against medical device manufacturers. For more information, please visit our About Us section.

in Business 63 years * $4 Billion in Verdicts & Settlements * Best Law Firms: U.S. News & World Reports * Trial Lawyers Hall of Fame * SuperLawyers
 
Our Fees & Costs

Our lawyers provide free confidential case evaluations, and we never charge any fees or costs unless you first recover.

The contingency fee we charge ranges from 20% to 40%. The amount we charge is based on how much we recover for you. To review a summary of our fees and costs, click Fees & Costs.

 
Free Case Evaluation

To contact us for a free case evaluation, you can call us at (800) 277-1193. You also can request an evaluation by clicking Free & Confidential IVC Filter Evaluation Form. This form will be immediately reviewed by one of our attorneys handling the IVC Filter litigation.

Read More

Will My IVC Filter Case be Handled as a Class Action?

A class action is a lawsuit where a few individuals represent the interest of many individuals. The court rulings are binding on all persons who are a part of the class action. All class members are required to accept the settlement, even if an individual is going to receive little or no compensation.

Our IVC Filter attorneys will not be pursuing class actions for our clients. Instead, we represent each client on his/her specific facts, and we evaluate each client's damages on his/her specific facts. Each of our clients has the option of settling or not settling his/her case.

For a detailed discussion on class actions, mass torts, and multidistrict litigation, please visit our Class Action Mass Torts Page.

 

IVC Filter Lawsuit Settlement Amounts

IVC Filter compensation

As of this time, there have been no large mass tort settlements involving IVC filters. Generally, however, large groups of settlements do not occur until such time as a few lawsuits are tried before a jury, and the manufacturer is able to more thoroughly understand its financial risk. There has, however, been at least three reported settlements in individual cases.

In March 2013, Bard settled an IVC filter case brought by plaintiff Lisa Davis, who received a G2 filter in 2006. The device fractured in 2008, migrating to her heart, resulting in ongoing health problems and making it necessary for her to take anticoagulant medications for the remainder of her life. Davis filed her complaint in 2011 in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan.

In January 2015, Bard settled a lawsuit brought by Kelly Vlasvich, alleging her IVC filter had fragmented. One of the twelve struts of the device lodged in her heart and two in her lungs. As a result, Mrs. Vlasvich suffered “permanent and extensive disfigurement.”

In February 2015, Bard reached a settlement with plaintiff Kevin Phillips for an undisclosed amount. Phillips filed the case in June 2012, alleging that the device, which had been implanted in 2005, fractured after five years. As a result, a fragment of the filter pierced and injured his heart. The case was tried in the U.S. District Court for the District of Nevada. Bard reached the settlement ten days after the opening of the trial.

 

Attorney Mike Papantonio Discusses the IVC Filter Lawsuits

 
Watch More Videos
 

IVC Filter Recall Information

In August 2010, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration issued a warning on “known long-term risks associated with IVC filters,” including “lower limb deep vein thrombosis [DVT], filter fracture, filter migration, filter embolization, and IVC perforation.” This warning came after the agency had received over 900 adverse event reports involving device migration, fracturing, and injuries resulting from organ perforation. The FDA made a recommendation that filters be removed from the patient as soon as the risk of pulmonary embolism was passed.

In March 2015, Bard issued a Class 2 Device Recall for its Denali IVC Filter. The recall notice cited missing label information in the product's instructions for use concerning “patients with uncontrolled sepsis and patients with known hypersensitivity to nickel-titanium alloys.” The recall affected 1,183 units.

Read More

In July 2015, the FDA issued a warning letter to Bard regarding the Recovery Cone Removal System, Model RC-15. This device was designed to facilitate the removal of the company's IVC filters from patients' bodies. According to the letter, the company was manufacturing the device “without marketing clearance or approval.” The device had been approved for the removal of some IVC filter models, but not others.

In August 2016, Health Canada issued a general safety warning regarding IVC filters after receiving over 120 “incident reports” of device fracture, organ and vein perforation, and patient deaths. The warning included twelve different models from six manufacturers, including Bard Peripheral Vascular and Cook Medical. The notice reported that most injuries and complications occurred after 30 days following implantation. Published in Health Canada - IVC Filter Risks

 

What is the Purpose of an IVC Filter?

The inferior vena cava (IVC) is a major vein that carries blood from the lower body into the heart. An IVC filter is a spider-like wire inserted into this vein in patients who are at high risk of a pulmonary embolism (a blockage in one of the arteries in the lungs).

The IVC filter's purpose is to prevent blood clots from entering the heart, lungs, kidneys or brain by catching the clots in the bloodstream and allowing them to break down over time. The filters often are used with patients who are not able to take anticoagulant medication (drugs that help prevent blood clots).

Read More

It's recommended that the filter be removed from the patient within six to twelve weeks of being inserted. The longer the filter remains in the patient the more difficult it is to remove, and the greater chance of injury.

A study conducted at Boston University School of Medicine found that IVC filters provide no significant benefit in survivability rate among trauma patients.

A separate clinical trial found that treating an acute pulmonary embolism patient with an IVC filter and an anticoagulation drug provided no additional benefit compared to treating the patient with just an anticoagulation drug.

After extensive clinical research, physicians from the Albert Einstein College of Medicine in New York City concluded that traumatic spinal cord injury (SCI) patients treated with an IVC filter were at higher risk for experiencing a deep vein thromboembolism than SCI patients who were simply provided anticoagulant medication.

 

IVC Filter Lawsuit News

IVC Filter Knee News Banner

Why Did Firm Keep Selling Problem Blood-Clot Filters?

A company that made a blood-clot filter associated with 27 deaths and hundreds of problems replaced the device with a modified version that it knew had similar and potentially fatal flaws soon after it was put on the market. Confidential company records obtained by NBC News show that New Jersey-based medical device giant C.R. Bard was concerned about reports of failures for its G2 series filters, designed to replace the company's Recovery filter, within four months of being cleared to sell the G2 by the Food and Drug Administration. But instead of recalling the G2 filter, and the virtually identical G2 Express, the medical device manufacturer decided to keep them on the market for five years, until 2010, selling more than 160,000 of them. At least 12 deaths and hundreds of problems are now linked to the G2 series filters, according to Bard and FDA records. Published in NBC News - IVC Filter Blood-Clots

Did Forged Signature Clear Way for Dangerous Blood-Clot Filter?

In 2002, medical giant C.R. Bard recruited Kay Fuller, a veteran regulatory specialist, to help secure FDA clearance for its Recovery blood clot filter, after the agency had turned down a previous application. The Recovery, a one-and-a-half-inch metal trap, was designed to sit inside a major vein, the vena cava, and block blood clots from traveling to the heart or lungs, where they could be deadly. Published in NBC News - IVC Filter Forged Signature

Read More

Did Blood-Clot Filter Used on Thousands of Americans Have Fatal Flaw?

Serious questions are being raised about a medical device implanted in thousands of Americans at risk for blood clots — including whether the manufacturer told all it knew about potentially fatal flaws. At least 27 deaths have been associated with the Recovery filter — a spider-shaped apparatus that is inserted into the largest vein in the body — over the course of a decade, an NBC News investigation has found. Published in NBC News - IVC Filter Fatal Flaw

 

FDA and Scientific Studies Regarding IVC Filter

Perforation of the IVC: rule rather than exception after longer indwelling times for the Günther Tulip and Celect retrievable filters

Perforation of at least one filter component through the IVC was observed in 43 of 50 (86%) filters on CT scans obtained between 1 and 880 days after filter placement. All filters imaged after 71 days showed some degree of vena caval perforation, often as a progressive process. Filter tilt was seen in 20 of 50 (40%) filters, and all tilted filters also demonstrated vena caval perforation. Transjugular removal was attempted in 12 of 50 (24%) filters and was successful in 11 of 12 (92%). Published in Cardiovasc Intervent Radiology - IVC Perforations

Bard Recovery filter: evaluation and management of vena cava limb perforation, fracture, and migration

Recovery filter limb perforation of the vena cava increases over time and is associated with a 21% incidence of filter arm fracture and migration. Follow-up imaging is recommended. Published in Journal of Vascular and Interventional Radiology - IVC Fracture & Migration

Read More

Prevalence of Fracture and Fragment Embolization of Bard Retrievable Vena Cava Filters and Clinical Implications Including Cardiac Perforation and Tamponade

The Bard Recovery and Bard G2 filters had high prevalences of fracture and embolization, with potentially life-threatening sequelae. Published in JAMA Internal Medicine - Bard Filter Perforations

Frequent Fracture of TrapEase Inferior Vena Cava Filters

The devices were evaluated at an average of 50.0 months after implantation. Among the 20 patients (20 TrapEase IVCFs), 10 TrapEase IVCFs (50%) were fractured. Remarkably, 9 of the 14 filters (64%) that had been inserted for longer than 4 years revealed fractures. Straight struts were fractured in all cases. Among the 10 fractured IVCFs, 8 had a single fractured strut, while 2 had multiple fractured struts. Radiographic and 3-D CT images revealed the geometrical relationships between the fracture sites and the neighboring structures. Among the fractured filters, the straight struts of the TrapEase IVCF seemed to be fractured by the compression of the vertebral bodies, particularly the vertebral osteophytes (9 cases) and the compression of the tortuous aorta (3 cases). Published in JAMA Internal Medicine - Vena Cava Filter Fractures

Inferior Vena Cava Filter Placement Does Not Result in a Survival Benefit for Trauma Patients

Using IVC filters in a prophylactic manner has no benefit in trauma patient survivability, and in fact is linked with an increase in deep venous thrombosis. Published in Annals of Surgery - IVC Filter Survival Benefits

 
Awards
AWARDS
  • Best Law Firms: U.S. News & World Report
  • Best Lawyers in America
  • National Trial Lawyers Hall of Fame
  • Public Justice Trial Team of the Year
  • Martindale-Hubbell Preeminent Woman Attorney
  • National Law Journal Elite Trial Lawyers
  • SuperLawyers
For a list of our awards, click here.
 
Awards
AWARDS
  • Best Law Firms: U.S. News & World Report
  • Best Lawyers in America
  • National Trial Lawyers Hall of Fame
  • Public Justice Trial Team of the Year
  • Martindale-Hubbell Preeminent Woman Attorney
  • National Law Journal Elite Trial Lawyers
  • SuperLawyers
For a list of our awards, click here.
 
Jury Verdicts
JURY VERDICTS
  • $1 Billion in Defective Product Case
  • $480 Million in Airplane Crash
  • $380 Million in Environmental Pollution Case
  • $150 Million in Defective Drug Case
  • $42 Million in Fraud Case
  • $31 Million in Medical Malpractice Case
  • $25 Million in Motor Vehicle Accident
  • $18 Million in Train Derailment
For a list of our verdicts, click here.
Jury Verdicts
JURY VERDICTS
  • $1 Billion in Defective Product Case
  • $480 Million in Airplane Crash
  • $380 Million in Environmental Pollution Case
  • $150 Million in Defective Drug Case
  • $42 Million in Fraud Case
  • $31 Million in Medical Malpractice Case
  • $25 Million in Motor Vehicle Accident
  • $18 Million in Train Derailment
For a list of our verdicts, click here.
Testimonials
CLIENT STATEMENTS

Here are some of the notes clients have sent us:

You saved my life.
I want to express my deepest appreciation.
You mean so much to our family.
I am so appreciative.

To read our client reviews, visit our Testimonial page.

The Florida Bar disclaimer regarding posting testimonials is available here.
 
Testimonials
CLIENT STATEMENTS

Here are some of the notes clients have sent us:

You saved my life.
I want to express my deepest appreciation.
You mean so much to our family.
I am so appreciative.

To read our client reviews, visit our Testimonial page.

The Florida Bar disclaimer regarding posting testimonials is available here.