IVC Filter Lawsuit Lawyer - Side Effects, Settlements & Help
IVC Filter Lawsuit Lead Banner

The lawsuit involving the IVC Filter states the manufacturers of the IVC blood clot devices failed to warn patients and physicians of the increased risks of the filters breaking, and metal fragments moving through the blood, potentially damaging an organ. Plaintffs attorneys argue the manufacturer C.R. Bard hid the results of its own research finding the filters dangerous, and even forged an employee's signature on an FDA application in order to get FDA approval.

IVC Filters are breaking inside patients, and metal parts are moving through the blood; damaging hearts, lungs and causing internal bleeding

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 IVC filters causing problems include the Bard Eclipse, Bard Merdian, and Bard Denali.

 

Why is an IVC Filter Utilized

IVC Filter Prescription Banner

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 device inserted into this vein in patients who are at high risk of 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 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).

the purpose of the IVC Filter is to prevent blood clots from entering the heart, lungs and brain
 

Side Effects and Risks of IVC Filters

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

Below are some of the more frequent injuries experienced when IVC filters break and pieces move to the heart or lungs.

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

In summary, the IVC filter products are known to break apart (fracture), move, puncture, and result in significant retrieval complications. Perforation (puncturing) of important organs (such as the heart and lungs) is frequent in cases where an IVC filter has broken, fractured, and/or migrated (moved). Retrieval of these filters is often unsuccessful, requiring multiple surgeries.

 

IVC Filter Lawsuit Videos

To read the transcripts, click IVC Filter Video Transcripts
 
Why Choose Us

Our law firm has been in existence for more than 60 years, and is considered a national leader in this type of litigation. We have received well over 150 jury verdicts throughout the country in the amount of $1 million or more, and achieved verdicts and settlements in excess of $3 billion. We also are the founder of Mass Torts Made Perfect, which is a national seminar attended by approximately 800 lawyers twice per year where we help teach the successful handling of cases against medical device companies. For more information, please visit our About Us section.

in business 60 years - $3 billion in verdicts and settlements - listed in Best Lawyers in America, SuperLawyers and Trial Lawyers Hall of Fame
What Does It Cost

Our lawyers provide absolutely free confidential consultations, and if we are fortunate enough for you to hire us, we never will charge you any fees or costs unless you first recover. To review a summary of our fees and costs, click Fees & Costs.

Contact Information

To contact us for a free confidential consult, you can call us at (800) 277-1193 (toll free). You also can request a confidential consultation by clicking Free & Confidential Consult, which form will be immediately reviewed by one of our attorneys handling the IVC Filter litigation.

Read More

Have There Been Any Significant IVC Filter Settlements

As of this time, there have been no large group settlements involving IVC Filters. Litigation likes this takes many years to resolve, with teams of lawyers spending millions of dollars trying to determine exactly what occurred, and how it could have been prevented. Generally, large groups of settlements do not occur until such time as a few cases are tried before a jury, and the manufacturer is able to more thoroughly understand its financial risk. This in no way means you can wait to hire an attorney and file a lawsuit. Just the opposite, if you wait, you could permanently lose all of your rights, even if a settlement occurs in the future. This is because every state has time limitations in which you can file a lawsuit for any injuries that you have sustained or could sustain resulting from IVC Filters.

Will the IVC Filter Litigation be Handled as a Class Action

A class action is a type of lawsuit where a few individuals represent the interest of many individuals, even if they don't have a lawyer and are not named in the lawsuit. The court rulings and jury rulings impact all persons who are considered a member of the class action, most of whom do not even know they are involved. This is not the type of litigation we will be pursuing for our clients. Instead, we represent each individual based on his/her specific circumstances, and evaluate the recovery for each client based on his or her facts. Each of our clients always has the option of settling or not settling his or her case.

 

FDA and Scientific Studies Regarding IVC Filter

IVC Filter FDA Research Banner

Removing Retrievable Inferior Vena Cava Filters: Initial Communication

Since 2005, the FDA has received 921 device adverse event reports involving IVC filters, of which 328 involved device migration, 146 involved embolizations (detachment of device components), 70 involved perforation of the IVC, and 56 involved filter fracture. Some of these events led to adverse clinical outcomes in patients. These types of events may be related to a retrievable filter remaining in the body for long periods of time, beyond the time when the risk of PE has subsided. To read more, click FDA Safety Alert

Removing Retrievable Inferior Vena Cava Filters: FDA Safety Communication

The FDA developed a quantitative decision analysis using publicly available data available in the medical literature to assess whether there is a time period during which the risk of having an IVC filter in place is expected to outweigh the benefits. The decision analysis (Decision Analysis of Retrievable Inferior Vena Cava Filters in Patients without Pulmonary Embolism) was published in the Journal of Vascular Surgery: Venous and Lymphatic Disorders in October 2013. The mathematical model suggested that if the patient’s transient risk for pulmonary embolism has passed, the risk/benefit profile begins to favor removal of the IVC filter between 29 and 54 days after implantation. To read more, click FDA Safety Alert

Read More

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%). To read more, click Cardiovasc Intervent Radiology

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. To read more, click Journal of Vascular and Interventional Radiology

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. To read more, click JAMA Internal Medicine

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). To read more, click JAMA Internal Medicine

IVC Filter Recall Information

As of this time, there has not been a recall of Bard's IVC blood clot filter. However, the FDA has issued two warnings about the device, and recommends that it be used only temporarily if a patient is unable to take anticoagulant (blood clot) medication. The FDA recommends that patients who have received an IVC Filter talk with their physicians as soon as possible to make sure it has not moved or broken apart, and whether the device should now be removed.

No recall, but FDA recommends IVC filter patients speak with their doctors ASAP
 
IVC Filter News Banner

IVC Filter Lawsuit News

IVC Filters – Do The Pros Outweigh the Cons

Lawsuits are beginning to mount against the manufacturers of Inferior Vena Cava filters – small devices implanted into patients to help catch blood clots. The lawsuits claim that the devices might be causing more harm than good in patients. To read more, click Drug Safety News

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. To read more, click NBC News

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. To read more, click NBC News

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. To read more, click NBC News


CR Bard Targeted in NBC News Investig. Over Blood Clot Filter: Purposely Hid Known Dangers

Earlier this month, NBC News completed a year-long investigation of medical device manufacturer CR Bard. It is the company responsible for the Recovery IVC filter, a device inserted into a major vein in order to prevent blood clots from reaching the lungs. Designed to be “retrievable” once the patient is no longer in danger from blood clots, this device has been implicated in 30 fatalities and 300 injuries. NBC News found evidence that Bard executives were fully aware of the dangers to patients who had the device implanted as far back as 2004. To read more, click Ring of Fire


Bard Medical Forges Signature to Get FDA Approval on Dangerous Blood Clot Filter

Bard Medical, also known as C.R. Bard, may have been willing to commit a felony that would merit a long prison term for a natural person in order to preserve its profit margin. As recently reported on several media web sites, someone in the company allegedly forged the signature of an in-house regulatory specialist in order to get FDA approval for a product the company knew to be dangerous. To read more, click Ring of Fire


Big Pharma CR Bard Forged Documents to Get FDA Approval on a Dangerous Blood-Clot Filter Killing Patients

A former regulatory specialist for medical device manufacturer CR Bard alleges that someone at the company forged her signature on an FDA application in order to get approval for a device. Kay Fuller is a regulatory specialist. Her job at CR Bard was to work with the US Food and Drug Administration in order to get approval for medical devices. The device in this particular case is known as the Recovery Blood Clot Filter. Surgeons insert this device into a major artery in order to prevent blood clots from entering the heart or the lungs. According to Ms. Fuller, a clinical trial raised serious questions about the safety of the device. Furthermore, the company itself withheld test results, and did not share them with her. To read more, click Ring of Fire