IVC Filter Update
Pravati IVC Filters
IVC filter update & Legal Funding for your IVC Filters Lawsuit
IVC filter lawsuits claim that defects in the design of retrievable IVC filters make them more likely to fracture, migrate, tilt or perforate the inferior vena cava, which can result in severe injury or death. Thousands of IVC filter complaints accuse medical device manufacturers of failure to warn about the device’s defects and health risks. Plaintiffs injured by an alleged defective IVC filter are seeking compensation from C.R. Bard, Cook Medical and other IVC filter makers based on grounds of negligence and breach of implied warranty. While some individual cases have been settled, neither Bard nor Cook has announced a global settlement to resolve approximately 6,000 pending lawsuits.
Medical device manufacturers designed Inferior Vena Cava (IVC) filters to prevent life-threatening blood clots in the lungs called pulmonary embolisms. These IVC filters are commonly used in patients that cannot tolerate blood thinners to reduce the risk of blood clots. These retrievable filters are tiny, spider-like metal devices designed to trap blood clots before they travel up the body’s largest artery, the inferior vena cava, to the lungs or brain, and cause an embolism or stroke.
IVC Filter Problems
The FDA has received reports of IVC filters migrating from the inferior vena cava to other parts of the body, including the heart and lungs. The filters can fracture or break, and embed themselves within the vein or nearby organs. . Doctors have often removed the device but have not been able to recover fragmented pieces of the filter.
These complications put patients at increased risk for other serious injuries, including hemorrhage; perforation of tissues, vessels, and organs; heart attack; and even death
IVC Filter Update, Studies, and Reports
Increasingly, medical literature and news reports have alerted the public on the dangers of these devices. According to one NBC News investigation, dozens of deaths and hundreds of non-fatal complications are linked to the Bard Recovery and G2 filters. The investigation says that Bard knew about problems with the devices but did not pull them from the market. Instead, the company allegedly covered up the issues and continued selling the faulty G2 and Recovery filters, putting hundreds of thousands of patients at risk for potentially fatal injuries. In November 2017, NBC Nightly News reported that C.R. Bard’s Recovery blood clot filter has been associated with more than 300 non-fatal injuries and 27 deaths before the company stopped selling the devices in 2005.
Since 2010 the FDA has communicated to physicians that IVC filters are supposed to be removed once a person’s risk for blood clots had subsided. Leaving these retrievable IVC filters in too long increases a person’s risk for serious complications. A study published in JAMA: Internal Medicine (Apr 2013) found that retrieval of the devices occurs in fewer than 10 percent of IVC filter patients. About 680 patients received retrievable IVC filters, and doctors were only able to successfully remove 58 of them. Doctors made 13 unsuccessful removal attempts, 11 of which occurred in those who had their filters for more than 85 days.
A study in November 2017 suggests the placement of inferior vena cava filters have been on the decline since hitting a peak in 2010. That decline coincides with a warning issued by the FDA in 2010 against use of IVC filters as a long-term strategy against problematic blood clots.
An article in the Annals of Surgery (Oct 2015) concluded that IVC filters can actually cause pulmonary thrombosis to occur—the condition the device is supposed to prevent. Twice the percentage of IVC filter patients died or developed thrombosis as those who did not receive the device.
IVC Filter Lawsuits
Currently there are two IVC filter multidistrict litigations (MDLS): one for lawsuits filed against Cook and another for lawsuits filed against Bard. As of December 2017, more than 6,000 IVC filter lawsuits are pending in federal courts. The majority of claims accuse medical device manufacturers Bard and Cook Medical of negligence and designing defective devices. Lawyers accuse the medical device makers of downplaying side effects, selling an unreasonably dangerous device, and failing to study it for safety.
Cook Medical devices include Cook Celect filter and Cook Günther Tulip filter.
The multidistrict federal litigation against Cook Medical is taking place in Indiana–where Cook is headquartered. (MDL -2570 IN RE: Cook Medical, Inc., IVC Filters Marketing, Sales Practices and Products Liability Litigation). Cook won its first trial in November after a jury determined that the plaintiff failed to prove the filter was defective. However, Cook faces at least two more trials in 2018.
In 2016 two class-action lawsuits were launched by Canadians against Cook. The plaintiffs allege the apparatuses have broken apart and become trapped inside their bodies, and left them dealing with the painful consequences, according to CTV News.
CR Bard devices include Bard Recovery filter, Bard G2 filter and Bard G2 Express filter.
A class action against Bard has been filed in Arizona—where Bard is headquartered. Bard attempted to have all charges dismissed but the judge pointed out that Bard’s IVC filters had been approved through the FDA’s 510(k) process. As of January, 2018, over 4,500 IVC filter lawsuits are currently pending against C.R. Bard in a federal Multi-District Litigation (MDL No. 2641) — In Re: Bard IVC Filters Products Liability Litigation. The first case goes to trial in Phoenix in March 2018.
In December 2017 a lawsuit was filed by a man from Pennsylvania who was injured by Bard’s G2® Inferior Vena Cava Filter. Jose O. accuses Bard of manufacturing a defective device, failing to warn about side effects, designing a defective device, negligence, negligent misrepresentation, breach of implied and express warranty, and fraudulent misrepresentation. His lawsuit is centralized with the MDL in Arizona. (Case 2:17-cv-04548-DGC)
Gage v. Cook Medical Inc. involving the Günther Tulip IVC filter has been selected as a bellwether and is scheduled for trial in April, 2018. Arthur Gage in his lawsuit claims the Günther Tulip filter perforated his vena cava and can’t be removed. Cook Medical says that about 45 percent of the patients in the MDL had a Günther Tulip implanted.
A Nevada man filed a lawsuit after Bard’s Recovery Filter System implant in 2005 migrated to his heart, causing life-threatening complications requiring emergency open-heart surgery in April 2010. Five years later his case went to trial. Ten days into the February 2015 trial, C.R. Bard settled with Kevin Philips for an undisclosed amount. Bard settled with another plaintiff after 11 days into trial in January, 2015. Plaintiff’s attorneys showed evidence that C.R. Bard had known since 2004 that their Recovery Filter was not “reasonably safe” and exposed patients to risk of death and severe injuries.
A number of complaints have been filed in California and Florida against Cordis Corp. of Miami Lakes. In December of 2017 a products liability suit filed against Cordis alleges its IVC filter contributed to a man’s death. (Carmine Convertino v. Cordis Corp., Case No. 2017-CA-013002, Fifteenth Judicial Circuit, Palm Beach County, Fl.).
The OptEase IVC filter made by Cordis and Johnson & Johnson was one of the first three devices to be approved (the others were Bard’s Recovery Filter and Cook Medical’s Gunther Tulip Filter. According to a press release issued by Osborne & Associates Law Firm, the lawsuit says, “This market expansion and off-label use was driven by baseless marketing campaigns made by Defendants [Cordis Corp] targeting bariatric, trauma, orthopedic and cancer patient populations.”
IVC Filter Help
If you or someone you know has had an IVC filter implanted that resulted in injury or a serious medical complication you may have a case for filing a claim against the manufacturer.
Even if you aren’t experiencing any noticeable symptoms, attorneys recommend that IVC filter recipients get them checked by a doctor, to be certain the device is in the right place. And a visit to your doctor also serves as a reminder that the retrievable IVC filter needs to be retrieved.
If you have a retrievable IVC filters implanted but haven’t noticed any symptoms of complications, you may still be eligible for an IVC filter claim. These claims are called Product in Place, or PIP.